Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

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."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116501 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Pong is good!

On a cheap game system, sure. But it is a waste of resources for a supercomputer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116502 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Rebuttal the following if you can, ANYONE!
Red shift and blue shift
More new science by Jim Ryan
Red shift, blue shift, shows the complete stupidity of all in the scientific world, that are either too stupid to understand how galaxies work or they are simply government stooges.
Just think about it. Science claims that red shift means the Big Bang is correct, but blue shift doesn't mean a shrinking universe, but more importantly, consider how our own insignificant solar system, revolves within our own galaxy, just as every other solar system within this and every other galaxy.
If we look at any planet within any galaxy, there will be times that each and every one will be going away from us at times and at other times, each and everyone will be coming towards us, just as galaxies can, dependent on where each galaxy is located, its speed and direction.
Surely there are galaxies ahead of the galaxies we see. We surely know that some galaxies do not move as fast as others, right? Wouldn't that mean that the faster galaxies are catching up to the slower galaxies that we can't see? Doesn't that mean that according to science on their worlds, that blue shift is dominant and a shrinking universe, at least according to our science?
Science is either very stupid or lying.

Several of us have refuted this. It is your choice to ignore it.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116503 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Rebuttal the following if you can, ANYONE!
Red shift and blue shift
More new science by Jim Ryan
Red shift, blue shift, shows the complete stupidity of all in the scientific world, that are either too stupid to understand how galaxies work or they are simply government stooges.
Just think about it. Science claims that red shift means the Big Bang is correct, but blue shift doesn't mean a shrinking universe, but more importantly, consider how our own insignificant solar system, revolves within our own galaxy, just as every other solar system within this and every other galaxy.
If we look at any planet within any galaxy, there will be times that each and every one will be going away from us at times and at other times, each and everyone will be coming towards us, just as galaxies can, dependent on where each galaxy is located, its speed and direction.
Surely there are galaxies ahead of the galaxies we see. We surely know that some galaxies do not move as fast as others, right? Wouldn't that mean that the faster galaxies are catching up to the slower galaxies that we can't see? Doesn't that mean that according to science on their worlds, that blue shift is dominant and a shrinking universe, at least according to our science?
Science is either very stupid or lying.
Name one celestial object that is in blue shift. I'll wait.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116504 Feb 9, 2013
appleby wrote:
<quoted text>
We are restricted to human terms whether referring to magic poofing of the creationists or the alien conspiracy plot. However, we are waiting to hear about your special ability to break the alien code so we can understand their technology.
Humans have explored only 1% of the deep oceans. What in the world makes you think humans are ready for deep space exploration. Read about how human technology is not capable or adequate enough for contact.Wait, its not in text books ........cant read about it, cant comprehend it. Regurgitate all the info and stats known to man......good luck.
One way or another

United States

#116505 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Several of us have refuted this. It is your choice to ignore it.
Your a liar, but since deceit is your best defense and offense, we can't expect any better from the people like yourself, that have given themselves over to the cliques for its protection, that demand your obedience in return.
One way or another

United States

#116506 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one celestial object that is in blue shift. I'll wait.
The andromeda galaxy.
One way or another

United States

#116507 Feb 9, 2013
Everyone knows you're a liar dodger, because I challenged everyone and not one person here, could refute my red shift, blue shift facts.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116508 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you daftly trying to imply that Mosaic turner syndrome or indeed Turner syndrome are great for evolution?
They are syndromic anomalies
DEAD ENDS
-Renal anomalies
-Cardiovascular disease eg Coarctation/aortic valve disease
-Aortic dissection
-Hypertension
-Variable experience of fertilty issues, eg primary or secondary amenorrhoea
-Aortic rupture possible during birth if pregnancy is attained via IVF
And the list continues
Incidentally
Many men become 'mosaic' in their 40's
There exists documented evidence of this
<quoted text>
I have
Not impressed at all
But I live in hope....
<quoted text>
May be he got it here:
--Gibbons, A, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock", Science 279: 28-29. Copyright 1998, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/referenc...
Quoting from the on-line article:
"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
<quoted text>
Biggest ever fossil jelly fish were found in a Wisconsin sand quarry, found in Cambrian strata---dated at 510 million years
--Hagadorn J W, Dott R H and Damrow D, " Stranded on a later Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from central Wisconsin, Geology 30(2):147-150, 2002
Evidence of rapid burial
And does not support the evolution of "big-evolved-from-little " idea
ALSO-->
--Dasycladalean algae
--Pipiscids
--Agnathan fishes
--VEREBRATES found in the Early Cambrian of south China
--Lystrosaurus in the Permian of Zambia.
--The sponge Neoguadalupia — another Permo-Triassic boundary ‘violator'
--The bivalve Camptochlamys
--> In this particular instance, there is more than a stratigraphic-range extension. There also is a contradiction between this particular fossil’s stratigraphic occurrence in European strata, and that of North America. So much for the myth that there is a consistent succession of fossils from one continent to another! Of course, this is not the only such instance....
I think you missed the point of my post that you were responding to - understandable if you just read the reminder that I had given UC, rather than the post I was initially referring to.

The point was more about the propensity of creationists to lie like a politician , caught with his pants down, whist doing his tax returns (sorry about the image)

UC has 99 odd points that he says shows evolution to be wrong - I was simply pointing out that the ones i quoted (a sample) were not true.

I wasn't for instance saying that Turner syndrome is good for evolution - just pointing out that UCs insistence that chromosome counts are fixed for a species is a lie.

Again a simple point I was making apologies you didn't get it - however thanks for responding - UC seemed to be unwilling to admit/defend my assertion that the points mentioned we untrue.

Ho-hum - I guess he is just following the guidance on the creationism 101 handbook 'creationism for dummies' or just 'creationism' as it is known.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116509 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
The andromeda galaxy.
Very good, one of the very few. It is expected to collide with the milkyway in 3.7 billion years. Mark your calendar, I'll buy you lunch then.

The vast majority of the celestial objects are red shifted. You didn't seem to know that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116510 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one celestial object that is in blue shift. I'll wait.

The Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted. It is coming right for us.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116511 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a liar, but since deceit is your best defense and offense, we can't expect any better from the people like yourself, that have given themselves over to the cliques for its protection, that demand your obedience in return.

Nevertheless, it is a fact.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116512 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Everyone knows you're a liar dodger, because I challenged everyone and not one person here, could refute my red shift, blue shift facts.

Still it isn't true. The entire universe, save a few galaxies in our local group, are red shifted as they are moving away from us.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116513 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted. It is coming right for us.
Lunch is on me when it gets here.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116514 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Lunch is on me when it gets here.
Restaurant at the end of the galaxy ?(Apologies to the late D Adams for the paraphrase)

I'll book a table

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116515 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Lunch is on me when it gets here.

It will be in about 4 billion years. I will keep you posted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116516 Feb 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Restaurant at the end of the galaxy ?(Apologies to the late D Adams for the paraphrase)
I'll book a table

"We apologize for the inconvenience."

Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116517 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So far you have not shown that you actually understand ERVs and only parrot creationist sites on the subject.
Comets are interesting. Objects billions of years old formed during the first moments of the solar system.
Not counting the occasional extrasolar one that might come by.
Where are they supposedly being "created" now?

If billions of years old....and if the ones we see today were created billions of years ago...that would be a miracle

No evolutionary cosmologist believes that

Simple fact, Bro'

And I say "Bro'" since we, you and I, will be in eternity together...

Does take the shine off a little....? For me too

Naturally when eternity happens you will be a full blown Creationist...

But, have no fears

NO WAY will I make any snide remarks....
I swear!

Well....OK...

May be just a few snide remarks

Anyhoo

Comets lose so much mass by every "fly" past the sun they should have evaporated after a few tens of thousands of year

The concoction of hypothetical sources to replenish comets was the result of this fact
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116518 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science only works with data (observations).
Speculation of causes without data is meaningless (and not science).
Manipulating the data so it conforms to a priori beliefs is also not science.
Yes
In a Utopian paradise it works just like that

**Cuckoo**

Very naive

In the real world of 'science'...data are routinely discarded if they do not conform to --materialistic bigotry-- long ages

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116519 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are they supposedly being "created" now?

Um.... In newer solar systems.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> If billions of years old....and if the ones we see today were created billions of years ago...that would be a miracle

Why. They are remnants of the origin of our solar system.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No evolutionary cosmologist believes that
Simple fact, Bro'

Maybe you need to read a bit more cosmology.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> And I say "Bro'" since we, you and I, will be in eternity together...
Does take the shine off a little....? For me too
Naturally when eternity happens you will be a full blown Creationist...
But, have no fears
NO WAY will I make any snide remarks....
I swear!
Well....OK...
May be just a few snide remarks
Anyhoo
Comets lose so much mass by every "fly" past the sun they should have evaporated after a few tens of thousands of year
The concoction of hypothetical sources to replenish comets was the result of this fact

They actually lose only a small percentage of their mass on each flyby. A lot depends on their orbit. But the short period comets (for example the Jupiter-family comets) which have been captured by gravity and go around the sun with such a short period are DOOMED. They will burn out or hit a planet and that will be the end of them. Few comets are short period comets (though we see them the most frequently because of their short periods).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

Take care, Bro.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116520 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... In newer solar systems.
<quoted text>
Why. They are remnants of the origin of our solar system.
<quoted text>
Maybe you need to read a bit more cosmology.
<quoted text>
They actually lose only a small percentage of their mass on each flyby. A lot depends on their orbit. But the short period comets (for example the Jupiter-family comets) which have been captured by gravity and go around the sun with such a short period are DOOMED. They will burn out or hit a planet and that will be the end of them. Few comets are short period comets (though we see them the most frequently because of their short periods).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet
Take care, Bro.
Wow, regurgitated text.....wonderful. Gods, bones and comets...really. Dogen what about the Hubble telescope, you know the pictures it captured of a slice of deep space....they concluded there are to many galaxies to count....What are your thoughts, disregarding regurgitated text, your thoughts. Enlighten us.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Aura Mytha 28,472
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 66,324
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Agents of Corruption 221,195
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr River Tam 160,830
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Eagle 12 3,417
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 6 hr Dogen 79
What does the theory of evolution state? 6 hr Dogen 103
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 11 hr Subduction Zone 137
More from around the web