Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Comments (Page 5,656)

Showing posts 113,101 - 113,120 of171,375
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116144
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Team

Lol, hey moron, light waves are not sound waves.
They do different things. The test was done with light. If they wanted to test with radio waves, they would have done so, but idiots rarely comprehend. Lol, thanks
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116145
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

But

Of course sound was supposed to be radio waves, but then why didn't you morons go tell the scientists, that they should have done the test with radio waves, instead of light waves?

Perhaps the scientists had a reason?

Oh golly, if y'all hurry, maybe you can change their minds. Lmao

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116146
Feb 5, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
But
Of course sound was supposed to be radio waves, but then why didn't you morons go tell the scientists, that they should have done the test with radio waves, instead of light waves?
Perhaps the scientists had a reason?
Oh golly, if y'all hurry, maybe you can change their minds. Lmao
The wavelengths for light are much shorter, affording a higher resolution in the measurement.

Just goes to show you've only had one original idea in your life and that was incorrect.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116147
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Once

As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.

Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.

The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.

Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116148
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is a known mechanism for evolution.
All of the drivers (mechanisms) of evolution have been observed genetically. The effects of the mechanisms is to cause life to change over time in response to its environment. These changes are recorded in the fossil and genomic records.
Simple facts that anyone can look up on real science sites, not on religion based pseudoscience sites.
Creation.com is not a science site as evidenced by:
"What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News”)
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
They are also into historical revisionism. If you would like examples from the site I would be glad to provide them.
I suggest you get your SCIENCE information from science sources.
Sure

What's a "science" source?

Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection

Expression of exiting genotypical features is not evolution
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles

Loss of variability is natural selection

This is driven by environmental stress

Darwin’s little engine can’t produce innovation

Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116149
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure
What's a "science" source?
Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection
Expression of exiting genotypic features is not evolution
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles
Loss of variability is natural selection
This is driven by environmental stress
Darwin’s little engine can’t produce innovation
Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?
Lets move on(MUFON) sense no intelligent life has answered this question: Can humans contact advanced civilizations utilizing human technology?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116150
Feb 5, 2013
 
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Lets move on(MUFON) sense no intelligent life has answered this question: Can humans contact advanced civilizations utilizing human technology?
To what advanced civilizations do you refer?

I say a resounding YES
Example:
Phone call from India to the US?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116151
Feb 5, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure
What's a "science" source?
Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection
Expression of exiting genotypical features is not evolution
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles
Loss of variability is natural selection
This is driven by environmental stress
Darwin’s little engine can’t produce innovation
Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?
Everywhere. It is clear that you do not understand the nature of scientific evidence. What is clear is that all fossils support the theory of evolution and none of them support creationism.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116152
Feb 5, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
To what advanced civilizations do you refer?
I say a resounding YES
Example:
Phone call from India to the US?
Might as well be talking to an ant..........Russell the ant.....have a
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116153
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Everywhere. It is clear that you do not understand the nature of scientific evidence. What is clear is that all fossils support the theory of evolution and none of them support creationism.
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?

"All fossils support evolution?"

Huh?

Usual evolutionary garbage

How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?

I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116154
Feb 5, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting that all of your points are the rare exception rather than the rule. And you forgot design. Oh, and you forgot Cowboy's Rule of Non-macroevolution.
Are radiometric dates consistent with an old earth the rule or the exception?

How about intermediates? We have thousands of them now, across all classes.

How about sediments? Are those types requiring long periods the rule or the exception?

How about galaxies more then 6000 light years away? Are they the exception UC?

etc.

Your problem is, you spend all your time on Creationist sites that spend all THEIR time focused on (usually imagined) rare anomalies, so you have no sense of the sheer weight of evidence that falsifies your viewpoint.

And Cowboy can have a rule for omelettes and beans for all I care, its meaningless to science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116155
Feb 5, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Cowboy’s Rule of Non-Macroevolution:
"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted within their own defined species (on very rare occasion, genus) regardless of ancestry or time.”
Oh, so this is your rule. Cute.

Now show the mechanism that underlies your made up rule. The one that stops adaptation being open ended and continuous, and sets limits on the amount of variation allowed. I note that even within your "rule", you have contradicted yourself by claiming that potential genetic variation is unlimited, but restricted. Could you be any less logical?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116156
Feb 5, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
Team
Lol, hey moron, light waves are not sound waves.
They do different things. The test was done with light. If they wanted to test with radio waves, they would have done so, but idiots rarely comprehend. Lol, thanks
So you seriously think that radio waves are sound waves? And you presume to lecture us all on how astronomers and physicists are wrong?

Certifiable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116157
Feb 5, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?
"All fossils support evolution?"
Huh?
Usual evolutionary garbage
How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?
I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...
Like I said, you are too uneducated to understand the concept of scientific evidence. I am too tired and it is too late for me to try to teach a dishonest person tonight.

By the way, I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong. The problem is that creationists usually use lying cretard sources and there is not too much of a chance of being wrong in that case.

The reason I call "educated" creationists "creatards" is that they either know better or should know better. They obviously lie time after time and if there is one thing that is detested in the world of science it is someone who does not tell the truth. Being wrong is acceptable. Lying is not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116158
Feb 6, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection
Evolution is just cumulative adaptation.
Natural selection is a part of evolution, half of the essential equation (novel variation being the other).
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles
The variations found in Lenski's bacteria were the result of novel mutations. They had to be, as the original populations were a monoclonal set - genetically identical.

Other experiments have clearly shown new functionality based on novel gene changes and insertions. The nylonase bacteria are another example.
Loss of variability is natural selection
True. Which is why without a source of new variation - mutation - populations would become less and less variable. It was a problem that troubled Darwin because he could not identify the source of new variation. Now we know.
Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?
Not "where in" - its the whole record. For example, one skull cannot tell us a lot individually except that a particular creature existed at a point in time. Its the accumulated sequence of changes that show consistency with the theory of evolution and thus confirm it. There would be no reason to expect this pattern in a Creationist framework.

1. Fossils show gradual divergence from modern forms as we go back in time. Rare "living fossils" are examples where a creature in a stable environment reached a local optimum from which much further change was not advantageous.

2. Fossils show gradual convergence with contemporary forms as we go back in time.

3. No highly derived form has ever been found and verified as existing before its possible evolutionary antecedents.

4. If all creatures were created in the first six days, then the fossil record should show examples of every kind of creature from the start, tapering off due to extinction. Not "no dinosaurs in the first three quarters of the strata, then dinosaurs for a quarter of the strata, then no dinosaurs for the last quarter" etc.

Same goes for birds, mammals, armoured fish, trilobites, archosaurs, giant amphibians, bony fish, ants, flowering plants, etc. NO ants, NO grasses, NO placental mammals, until the last part of the column.

Creationism does not even begin to tackle these, while evolution predicted them.

P.S. A cryodont could outrun a daffodil any day of the week.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116159
Feb 6, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you (Jimbo) are unable to extract the fundamental principle from a specific application.
Morons are like that.
A symptom of schizophrenia I believe?

Dogen will know.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116160
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116161
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

All the Evo morons act and speak as if its impossible for any of them to be wrong. That's part of the reason I call them children. Lol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116162
Feb 6, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
Right from the start, evolution was defined as adaptation to the environment in a continuing process that could result in large changes over time. Evolution is nothing more than adaptive change over a long period.

The only argument between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionist regard adaptation has continuing for millions of years with open-ended results, while creationists think there is some sort of limit on the maximum amount of adaptation no matter how long the process runs.

You would think that after years of your prattling on these sites, you might have picked up on the simplest aspects of the argument, but you cannot even do that.

Still think radio waves are sound waves?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116163
Feb 6, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes. I'm getting an idea what they call it The Troubles.
I've seen a little bit of how war can transform people. My own personal experience in Vietnam was mostly uneventful. No war stories, I just did my small job driving a mail truck. But I got to know several combat veterans who learned to love war. For some it's like a religion, it gives them a sense of purpose.
I hope you and those you care about remain safe and that a peaceful resolution will be found.
It’s certainly a lot more stable than it was but I believe the upcoming poll is starting to excite things again

Yes religion seems to have that effect even if it’s a substitute.

Cheers, we all hope that.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 113,101 - 113,120 of171,375
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••