Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

#116478 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Man!
Have you heard of carboxyhaemoglobin?
Me thinks there may be something of that ilk lurking around in your system...
Is this your idea of responding to my answer?
<quoted text>
When my original post went thusly--->
----------
Who the heck is Hovind?
And why would I "listen" to him anyway
I go where the evidence is, bud
Don't be a prat
The Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disc are HYPOTHETICAL
Nice bit of astrophysics, admittedly
But they fall into the realms of the usual evo-wishful thinking...
Kuiper belt: in order to work would need BILLIONS of comets
Hooray for your thousands...
Besides, they are TOO LARGE....over 100 km in diameter
Therefore, are at least TEN times wider than comets
Which means they are over a thousand times more massive!
Indeed, KBO's Orcus and Quaoar are over 1000 km in diameter.
Where Kuiper Belt failed as a potential reservoir for short distance comets, by virtue of its stability,
...enter stage R--> The Scattered Disc
--Levinson, H F and Donnes, L, "Comet populations and cometary Dynamics", in McFadden, L A A et al, Encyclopedia of the Solar system, 2nd Ed, Amsterdam, Boston,Academic Press, pp 575-588, 2007
Scattered disc objects are too few and too large eg SDO Eris is larger than Pluto, with a diameter of 2,400 km
Sedna SDO is larger than Quaoar
For long distance comets, with the Oort Cloud---> No observational support
--Sagan C and Druyan A, Comets, Michael Joseph, London, p 175, 1985
If there really was an Oort cloud, there should be 100 times more comets than we see...
So what do evolutionary astronomers do?
Fudge factor
"Arbitrary fading function"....or that they are broken before we see them
--Bailey, M E, Where have all the comets gone? Science 296 (5576):2251-2253, June 2002
--Levison, H F et al, The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science, 296, 5576, 2212-2215, June 2002
See the fallacy?
Hypothetical source for comets
Not observable even today
Claimed to be billions of years old
Then make something up to explain why this hypothetical source does not provide the comets it should
BIG FAIL

Just real quick, everything you said above is incorrect and even your references do not support your contentions.

You need to unlearn all your pseudoscience and start from scratch.

Belief is pseudoscience are like mind weeds. They grow fast and kill off the flowers of the mental garden.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116479 Feb 9, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
"We" is 1st person, Genius.

Urb is a mental giant.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116480 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....
So you have nothing. Why not just say so.
Throughout your post you give away the fact that you really don't understand evolution. Here are some examples.
"Are you daftly trying to imply that ......are great for evolution?"
Genetic disorders are well accounted for in evolutionary theory.
""Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate."
Why would you quote this. It is another dead giveaway.
"Evidence of rapid burial
And does not support the evolution of "big-evolved-from-little " idea"
Evolution does not state that big evolved from little. Where do you get this nonsense?
Everything else you mention either DOES support evolution or your understanding of how it functions in evolution is in error.
It seems that you, like so many other creationists, swallow whole whatever claptrap that comes your way. The reasons for this are because you are so desperate for creationism to be true and because you do not have enough understanding of science in general and evolution in particular to be able to filter out the nonsense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116481 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens!
What on earth are you jabbering on about?
Make your self clear
What paper?

His points were very clear. Let me distill them for you.

1. If you have a question about an article please post a link to it.

2. Real science is published in Real peer review journals by Real scientists.

3. If he searches for research and cannot find it in Google Scholar then it is not peer reviewed.

4. Peer review is critical in science.

These points were all clear enough in SZ's post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116482 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
As I thought...
You have nothing...
Just a Talk-oddities web site
And you..
Wrong again O Master of the Turds.

Talk Origins is only one of many sites that I can bring up. And Talk Origins is hated by all creatards since, unlike the sites that you list, all of their articles are based upon peer reviewed science articles and they list those articles clearly in their biographies.

That means that unlike your sites TalkOrigins is based upon real science and can back it up.

You still lose, loser.
One way or another

United States

#116483 Feb 9, 2013
Funny, you Evo children have suggested both about me. By the way, my daughter is a portrait, sketch artist.

I have beaten several lawyers at their own game and I expose a lot of ignorant thinking in science, even though you children hate me for it.

There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found.

Psychologists have discovered that creative people have a gene in common which is also linked to psychosis and depression.

They believe that the findings could explain why "geniuses" like Vincent van Gogh and Sylvia Plath displayed such destructive behaviour.

The gene, which is called neuregulin 1, plays a role in brain development but a variant of it is also associated with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Researchers from Semmelweis University in Hungary recruited a group of volunteers who considered themselves to be very creative and accomplished.

To measure creativity, the volunteers were asked to respond to a series of unusual questions. For example: "Just suppose clouds had strings attached to them which hang down to earth. What would happen?"

They were scored based on the originality and flexibility of their answers.

The volunteers also completed a questionnaire regarding their lifetime creative achievements before the researchers took blood samples.

The report concluded: "The results show a clear link between neuregulin 1 and creativity.

"Volunteers with the specific variant of this gene were more likely to have higher scores on the creativity assessment and also greater lifetime creative achievements than volunteers with a different form of the gene."

The head researcher Dr Szabolcs Kéri said that this is the first study to show that a genetic variant associated with psychosis may have some beneficial functions.

He said: "Molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively."

The study was published in the journal Psychological Science.
One way or another

United States

#116484 Feb 9, 2013

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116485 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
>gibberish deleted from this point<
I have asked why we are not dead 100 times over and am met with stony silence.
The 75 to 200 mutations per generation is what is needed to keep a species evolving. If we had less than that something like a major climate change would kill off the species due to lack of genetic diversity.
Russell wrote:
Kondrashov, A S, "Contamination of the genome by slightly very deleterious mutations: why we have not died 100 times over? J Theoret Biol 175:583-594, 1995
Confirmation of our youngish genomes
LOL Why do creationist like to misuse real science to their own ends? Clearly you have not read the article as it EXPLAINS WHY this mutation rate is NOT REALLY too high.
Heck, it appears you never even read the abstract.
Russell wrote:
Why attack evolution, when there are so many other available disciplines in science ...to trash...
--My paraphrasing---
Well, it's quite simple
Evolution is NOT science
Sorry chum, but he was referring to all the other sciences that refute the literal view of the bible (especially Genesis).
Geology,
Chemistry,
Physics
Anthropology
Paleontology
..........
and the list goes on.
Second, as I have demonstrated, evolution is not only science, it is among the best science in the history of science.
Evolution has multiple independent lines of evidence from multiple fields, over 150 years of research and published research into 6 figures!
Russell wrote:
Mere wishful thinking parading as science
Science is observable, testable, repeatable,
...evolution IS NOT
???? Again you don't seem to actually know anything about evolution and the above quote is classic creationist ignorance.
Evolution is Observable (environment, genetics, fossil record, laboratory)
Evolution is testable. No other scientific theory has been tested as much as the theory of evolution. Over 100,000 published peer review articles.
Evolution research is replicable and all major research in evolution has been replicated.
Evolution also is consistent with the principle of parsimony and is falsifiable.
Evolution is massively peer review.
Now, will you investigate this an admit you are dead wrong? I am not holding my breath.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116486 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
As I thought...
You have nothing...
Just a Talk-oddities web site
And you..

Really!

You cannot dispute even one of his points!

Wow. You give up easily.

You DO know that TO references published peer review research in nearly all of its articles, right?
One way or another

United States

#116487 Feb 9, 2013
From my life experiences in my 60 years on earth, genius is likely turned to madness in the minds of those that are pressured by more than they could bear from childhood. Fighters like myself thrive on the adversity from childhood, mentally, physically and emotionally. Madness or genius also depend on the possible number of outlets that can be accessed by each person.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116488 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Funny, you Evo children have suggested both about me. By the way, my daughter is a portrait, sketch artist.
I have beaten several lawyers at their own game and I expose a lot of ignorant thinking in science, even though you children hate me for it.
There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found.
Psychologists have discovered that creative people have a gene in common which is also linked to psychosis and depression.
They believe that the findings could explain why "geniuses" like Vincent van Gogh and Sylvia Plath displayed such destructive behaviour.
The gene, which is called neuregulin 1, plays a role in brain development but a variant of it is also associated with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Researchers from Semmelweis University in Hungary recruited a group of volunteers who considered themselves to be very creative and accomplished.
To measure creativity, the volunteers were asked to respond to a series of unusual questions. For example: "Just suppose clouds had strings attached to them which hang down to earth. What would happen?"
They were scored based on the originality and flexibility of their answers.
The volunteers also completed a questionnaire regarding their lifetime creative achievements before the researchers took blood samples.
The report concluded: "The results show a clear link between neuregulin 1 and creativity.
"Volunteers with the specific variant of this gene were more likely to have higher scores on the creativity assessment and also greater lifetime creative achievements than volunteers with a different form of the gene."
The head researcher Dr Szabolcs Kéri said that this is the first study to show that a genetic variant associated with psychosis may have some beneficial functions.
He said: "Molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively."
The study was published in the journal Psychological Science.

I have never denied you are creative, now have I?

Quite the contrary, I have suggested you are fairly intelligent but you lack basic knowledge about science.

Even if you have a supercomputer for a brain you can only run the best program you have stored. In your case that would be 'pong'.

It you took the time to study science (and get your mental health issues under better control) you could be quite formidable.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116489 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
From my life experiences in my 60 years on earth, genius is likely turned to madness in the minds of those that are pressured by more than they could bear from childhood. Fighters like myself thrive on the adversity from childhood, mentally, physically and emotionally. Madness or genius also depend on the possible number of outlets that can be accessed by each person.

Genius requires information, processing and intuition/creativity.

You are missing the first component. Without that your "genius" is like a stool with two legs.

People with autism seem to have very creative internal worlds and sometimes very high IQ's. But with few exceptions they have contributed nothing to science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116490 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!
You cannot dispute even one of his points!
Wow. You give up easily.
You DO know that TO references published peer review research in nearly all of its articles, right?
Russell does not realize that we instantly discount creationist sites since they practically never back up their articles with peer reviewed science. He tries to use the same tactic on TalkOrigins but fails because, as both you and I have pointed out, that TO is based upon peer reviewed, or as I like to say, real science.
One way or another

United States

#116491 Feb 9, 2013
Pong is good!
One way or another

United States

#116492 Feb 9, 2013
What others may claim is of their choices. They hold no sway, if they cannot counter the claims of the ones they pretend to judge, especially when their own traits are deceit and childishness, as they depend on a childish clique, because they can't stand on their own two feet.
One way or another

United States

#116493 Feb 9, 2013
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.
One way or another

United States

#116494 Feb 9, 2013
By the way, it doesn't take genius to have new thoughts and ideas. It just means you can be creative. I don't claim genius, I claim common sense and care. I also hate bullies and authority that destroys people's lives.
One way or another

United States

#116495 Feb 9, 2013
Rebuttal should be rebutt in my last post. This phone is evil sometimes. Hahahahahahahaha.
One way or another

United States

#116496 Feb 9, 2013
When a person lives under the rule of justice, backed by fairness at home, but the outside rule is of money, power, control and greed, laced with the bullying of parents and their hateful children, that can and will create a fence that must be walked in conscious and dream states alike.

This dichotomy is a gauntlet for all children in so many ways, dependent on looks, money, weight, height, none, one or two parents, governments, the media, all its nonsense and so much more.

By what we see, it is so much easier to join the cliques in life, because standing on ones own feet is a constant gauntlet .

Is it really any wonder that so few can actually think for themselves and even more challenging to do so, when one knows they cannot win.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116497 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
ISON is coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_ISON
So is this one....pay special attention to the last paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2011_L4

Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS), is a non-periodic comet discovered in June 2011, that is expected to be visible to the naked eye when it is near perihelion in March 2013.[3][4] The comet was discovered using the Pan-STARRS telescope located near the summit of Haleakala, on the island of Maui in Hawaii.

Comet C/2011 L4 had an apparent magnitude of 19 when it was discovered in June 2011.[5] By early May 2012, the comet had brightened to magnitude 13.5,[6] and could be seen visually when using a large amateur telescope from a dark site. As of October 2012, the coma (expanding tenuous dust atmosphere) was estimated to be about 120 000 km in diameter.[7] Comet PANSTARRS will pass closest to Earth on 5 March 2013 at a distance of 1.09 au.[4] It will come to perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) on 10 March 2013.[2] Original estimates predicted the comet would brighten to roughly apparent magnitude 0 (roughly the brightness of Alpha Centauri A or Vega). An estimate in October 2012 predicted the comet might brighten to magnitude -4 (roughly equivalent to Venus).[8] In January 2013 there was a noticeable brightening slowdown that suggests the comet may only brighten to magnitude +1.[9]

Comet C/2011 L4 probably took millions of years to come from the Oort cloud. After leaving the planetary region of the Solar System, the post-perihelion orbital period is estimated to be about 110 000 years.[1]

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 25 min Critical Eye 142,501
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 35 min Gary Coaldigger 20,528
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Paul Porter1 237
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 hr Strel 10
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 hr dirtclod 171,619
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 9 hr Paul Porter1 30
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 9 hr Paul Porter1 6
More from around the web