Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

One way or another

United States

#116642 Feb 10, 2013
Should say in above post,

Ok dodger 2, then your saying all the galaxies are moving away in direction from all other galaxies?
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116643 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this idiot, if red shift is real, is our galaxy moving in the same direction as all other galaxies?
Can we see the direction and speed of all other galaxies in the universe?
One last question, is andromeda the only galaxy moving in the opposite direction, so as to collide with our galaxy, according to science?
Our galaxy is not moving in the same direction as all others. In general, galaxies are moving away from each other. If they are close enough together, galaxies may move towards each other due to gravity. Andromeda is an example of a galaxy that is sufficiently close that gravity is pulling us together. There are other examples of clusters of galaxies falling in on each other.

We can measure the relative direction and speed of any galaxy we can see (we can't see all galaxies).

Happy?
One way or another

United States

#116644 Feb 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you never said that certain planets don't fit the hypothesis and you don't know why they don't fit? REALLY? You deny ever saying that your hypothesis doesn't work on 2 of the 9 subjects it pertains to?
Hey moron, read the inclusion I wrote to my hypothesis, referring to depth, or don't.

Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116645 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron
www.yourdictionary.com/constant
Constant describes something that doesn't change or something that continues or remains steady.(adjective)
Yes, idiot. Like a fundamental force of nature. it can remain constant, but the behavior of all the objects subject to that force is not static. Just like the rock falling down a cliff because of the constant force of gravity.

Got it YET????

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116646 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok dodger 2, then your saying all the galaxies are moving in direction from all other galaxies?
Outside of local clusters, the space between all galaxies in increasing. The further away from us, the faster they are moving away in relation to us.

A moment's thought, if you are capable, would demonstrate that this effect will look the same from any point, any galaxy, in the universe. The galaxies all around them will appear to be moving away, and the further they are, the faster they will be moving in relation to them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116647 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Should say in above post,
Ok dodger 2, then your saying all the galaxies are moving away in direction from all other galaxies?
Actually you should say nothing about anything until you understand the basics. You don't know the first thing about basic physics,(or any other science)while you presume to know what is "wrong" with it and call all the scientists liars.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116648 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand what a constant is, do you? Oh wow, this is too funny to be true! Chimney1 has given a great reply to this, so I won't bother. But if a kid ever asks me why they should stay in school, I'll point at you.
Well, that is our Jimbo. I don't usually bother to respond to his peculiar brand of idiocy these days.
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116649 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Gravity
A review

This hypothesis is bunk. No, that's unfair: this is not an hypothesis. No observations are made that challenge existing theories of gravity, so the motivation behind this "hypothesis" is a mystery. No predictions are offered; in fact, this diatribe contains nothing quantitative at all. It's as if someone read that Einstein performed "thought experiments" and thought all you had to do was imagine some shit. Reading this has made me depressed.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116650 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the creationist whining about rejection of their papers gets thin. Write better papers...
and also, I debunked his comet claims too. Its all old news, raised by UC 20 times already in the past.
Debunked by a hypothesis? That's not right.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116651 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't think you have.
But yes, when you have shown me creationist papers and I have read them, I have generally discredited them. Still I have done you a bigger favour than most evolutionists would, by simply bothering to read them and critique them on point rather than rubbish the whole enterprise.
That is because I will read them with the same critical eye I would read all papers and BTW you should be reading them in the same way. I am not talking Jimbo levels of paranoia here, simply rational critical analysis.
Saying you've debunked something is practically meaningless. Whether something is debunked or not is entirely up to the reader to decide. You don't any authority over anyone with regards to whether something has been dubunked or not. This is at the level of a Dogen or something. "That's already been debunked..." Right. Give me a break.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116652 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that is our Jimbo. I don't usually bother to respond to his peculiar brand of idiocy these days.
What do you mean? You resond to him constantly. You even changed your moniker because of him.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#116653 Feb 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
....Whether something is debunked or not is entirely up to the reader to decide....
No, it's up to the facts to decide. Since you don't like using those, you get debunked a lot.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116654 Feb 10, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Lets just for aurgument, say that a craft came within 10ft, put us(more than one)to sleep and cruzed over us without a sound. Could that in your mind ever be possible. Put on your tinfoil hat and try to think.
You'd think a lot of other people in the neighborhood would have noticed this event.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116655 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking at the one planet for which we have sufficient information what can we deduce? Out of the hundreds of millions of species that have lived on this planet for over 3 billion years, one one life form had had the intellect and knowledge to even begin to grapple with these problems. If that one went away how long before another so capable species might come along? We COULD have a universe teaming with life but with few others having developed even our rudimentary mental skills.
Reading every text book you can get your hands on is great....knowledge is power.So far, a lot of comments are text book based.....not to much going out on a limb, thinking what if, just regurgitating text. Lets imagine that a third law of human existence was discovered. That law states, "Deep space advanced alien intelligence is proof of human existence and all life on earth". Contact was made using an alien code discovered by accident. Not in text books, good luck.
urban cowboy

Miami, FL

#116656 Feb 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's up to the facts to decide. Since you don't like using those, you get debunked a lot.
I disagree.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116657 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of BS. Cosmological constant is defined as static. Now some moron with a web page wants to give it a new definition. You morons believe any BS some other moron writes.

You probably should have looked up Cosmological constant before you spoke.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116658 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahahahaha, why don't you post the definition of the cosmological constant moron.

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

Wherever do you get your nutty ideas?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116659 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're to stupid to understand. In the first part it looks that way, until one reads and understands the rest.

When you understand then the percentage increases to the point of there being no relationship whatsoever.

Larger (more massive) objects do tend to spin more rapidly. But that is a property of partial gravitational collapse.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116660 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
And you believe all that BS?

Translation: I don't understand, therefore it is BS.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116661 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If red shift is real, then logically our galaxy cannot be moving in the same direction as all other galaxies.
Imagine a redshifted galaxy dead east of you. Now another one dead west of you. Since they are both moving away from you in opposite directions, they cannot be moving in the same direction now, can they.
All other galaxies? We can only see the galaxies within the event horizon, defined as the limit of light's ability to travel up to 13.7 billion years i.e. the estimated age of the universe.
Anything beyond that is permanently invisible to us so we don't know what its doing.
As for what we can see, the further away from us it is, the faster it is moving away still further, outside our local galactic cluster.

Actually, we can be moving in the same direction as a red shifted object. It is just moving away from us faster than we are moving toward it.

Like a car passing you on the interstate. Going the same direction but the car would be red shifted after it passed you.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 9 min Messianic114 2,711
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min Science 61,551
One species or three 37 min Subduction Zone 7
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 50 min Mabinogi 220,703
Curious dilemma about DNA 4 hr Subduction Zone 11
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Subduction Zone 160,325
More from around the web