Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178619 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

#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]

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116498 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every one of your examples uses some form of the sharpshooter fallacy. For example, when you say a particular enzyme requires a trillion trillion years, you are putting the cart before the horse. You mean for that particular molecular arrangement, before having any clue just how many potential arrangements could have significant catalytic function of a similar sort.
One analysis of randomly assembled amino acid (polypeptide) chains showed that up to 10% of them showed some useful catalytic activity.
Also, your highly conserved "BBSome" is a ubiquitous protein complex that obviously underpins vital functions in most living organisms. Well, like any foundation that would have occurred early in Earth's life history, once cumulative complex function is built over it, it is very hard to change that core without disrupting dependent processes overlaying it.
That does NOT mean its the ONLY possible set of foundation proteins. It only means it was the one that happened to occur in life on this planet, early on. You have no way of determining how specific such a complex is for any life, you only know that it BECAME highly specific after other complex processes started to depend on it. If it had started out different, the overlying processes would be different too.
He also quoted the question as if there were no reasonable answer. But he left out the rest of the paragraph that answered the question.

“How does one reconcile an early evolution of syncytin-mediated placentation in eutherian mammals with the remarkably recurrent cooption of different syncytin genes, from different retroviral lineages, at different points in the evolution of mammalian orders? For instance, Syncytin-Car1 is at least 60 million years old and highly preserved, whereas the syncytin-1 gene in primates is approximately 25 million years old, and preserved only in hominoids but not Old World monkeys (14).
[HERE’S THE PART THAT HE LEFT OUT]:
Furthermore, several syncytin genes are sometimes conserved in parallel in some mammalian genomes. For instance, rodents have both syncytin-A and syncytin-B, whereas some primates have at least syncytin-1 and syncytin-2 (some primates have even more envelope genes with placental expression). At least part of the explanation is that there is some partitioning of function among the independent syncytin domestications. In humans and mice, only one of the copies (syncytin-2 in humans and syncytin-B in mice) has the immunosuppressive function (15). A second explanation is that the different syncytins are expressed in different layers of the placenta. In mice, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are expressed in the two separate layers of the murine syncytiotrophoblast (16). These findings raise the remarkable possibility that the various morphological innovations seen in placentation among different mammals (even among the hemochorial forms) may have been driven in part by the acquisition of different syncytin genes, with different receptors and different fusogenic abilities.”

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116499 Feb 9, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>What is intelligent design in human terms?
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.

“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.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr lozzza 19,142
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Subduction Zone 164,702
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 3 hr dirtclod 103
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr dirtclod 141,472
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 18 hr MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? Sun Zog Has-fallen 28
Christian Theology and the Natural Sciences are... Sat Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web