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 5,701)

Showing posts 114,001 - 114,020 of171,259
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117059
Feb 12, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that you did. I am sure that I would have noticed if you did something like that.
WRONG

Notice it...you did

Heteroplasmy
Its universal
Not unique to the case in Gibbons paper

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117060
Feb 12, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG
Notice it...you did
Heteroplasmy
Its universal
Not unique to the case in Gibbons paper
Good, so you admit you have nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117061
Feb 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>High end physics requires adherence to standards of science. Evolution is nothing but stories fabricated by intellectuals who think they are practicing science.
So you know nothing about evolution nor the theory that explains it. Good to know, your opinions on the matter are useless then.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117062
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because our time is much better spent on the actual science rather than waste it on the biased, hyped-up, exaggerated version of an already wrong theory by a bunch of crazed voodoo darwin zombees with an axe to grind.
So then why do you buy into creationism?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117063
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have forgotten more about evolution that you will ever learn. And none of my 99 reasons have ever been refuted here. You can't just say it's been refuted without ever having refuted it. You have to actually say something. You sure have a lot of comments next to your name but you hardly ever say anything.
Why must you lie so much?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117064
Feb 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, so you admit you have nothing.
You have no idea what I'm taking about, do you?
Since there's nothing on Snorting pigeons.com for you to clumsily look up about this subject
.....you're essentially stuffed
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117065
Feb 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer.
It's not self-evident, it must be demonstrated. Can you specify how complexity is measured in an objective manner via the scientific method and then tell us how that demarcation line between designed and non-design was determined?
HTS wrote:
Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Maternity wards.

Remember, abio is not relevant to the validity of evolution. We can even hand it to you on a plate - abio occured by Goddidit with magic. There. I give it to you. Evolution still occurs because there is life. We know this because abio happened and we observe life evolving. We couldn't care less that God magically poofed it into existence.

Now tell us how CSI demonstrates magical god-poofing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117066
Feb 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS. You can't provide any evidence as to how evolution producd the transcription/translation process. What you all science is nothing more than religion.
No, chemistry provides that process. That is all that's observed. And since we have now both agreed that that process happened therefore it enables evolution can happen. The only difference being is that you claim there's an intelligent agent behind it. All you need do now is demonstrate that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117067
Feb 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
I see that you're embracing the perverted logic of atheism. You imagine that pits and crags in cliffs and ocean waves are just as complex as DNA.
The Dude wrote:
Where did I ever make that claim?

I didn't.

The fact is they are complex. Complex as DNA? Well that depends upon how it's measured. So now I will help you:

In order for you to demonstrate your positive claim that the complexity of DNA means it was intelligently designed then you need to provide us with the measuring system you're using to measure the complexity of DNA. You must be able to assign it a precise numerical value AND you must also provide us with the demarcation line along that measure between designed and non-designed - that is, once the number reaches past a certain point we can definitively say that this must be designed because it has a complexity value of X and that isn't designed because it didn't quite reach that demarcation line. Oh, and you must also inform us of how you determined exactly what that demarcation line was in an objective manner via the scientific method. You must also provide us with an example of a NON-designed object/phenomena in order for us to compare it, and other items, with DNA, hence we can now objectively measure them all along your complexity measurement tool.

If this sounds familiar it is because it's PRECISELY what I asked you to provide well over 6 months ago now, and you failed to do so. But because I am a kind, generous and abiding Dude I am offering you another chance. Best of luck with your scientific endeavour!
HTS wrote:
I'm sorry, Dude, concepts of order and complexity cannot be rationalized away by a worldview of complete relativism.
The Dude wrote:
No rationalizing whatsoever. As you can quite clearly see above I am looking for an objective measurement system so as the "science" of IDC can be verified.
The Dude wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-O-Ar...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSM_V3...

What are the complexity values of each of these and how were they determined?
HTS, you still need to tell us how CSI, "Complex Specified Complexity" is measured. I keep asking this but no fundie is able to SPECIFY exactly what this IS. And that includes the guys who invented it.

Without this, your claim that "specified complexity makes design self-evident" has no case.

That's why you can't tell us WHO did it, WHERE they did it, WHAT exactly it is you think they did, HOW exactly they did whatever it is you think they did, or even WHEN they did it.

So far all we know is SOMETHING didit, SOMEhow, SOMEwhere, at SOMEtime.

Brilliant!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117068
Feb 13, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not self-evident, it must be demonstrated. Can you specify how complexity is measured in an objective manner via the scientific method and then tell us how that demarcation line between designed and non-design was determined?
<quoted text>
Maternity wards.
Remember, abio is not relevant to the validity of evolution. We can even hand it to you on a plate - abio occured by Goddidit with magic. There. I give it to you. Evolution still occurs because there is life. We know this because abio happened and we observe life evolving. We couldn't care less that God magically poofed it into existence.
Now tell us how CSI demonstrates magical god-poofing.
Cowboy Proposed Rule No. 2: "If a controlled, measured. detailed, and direct comparable analogy can be made from something complex that is observed and verified to be designed by intellegent agency with the biological test object under consideration, then one must consider it a candidate as such with the probability of intelligent design in direct relation to the degree and detail of the measured comparability."
Mugwump

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117069
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowboy Proposed Rule No. 2: "If a controlled, measured. detailed, and direct comparable analogy can be made from something complex that is observed and verified to be designed by intellegent agency with the biological test object under consideration, then one must consider it a candidate as such with the probability of intelligent design in direct relation to the degree and detail of the measured comparability."
A controlled analogy !!!

Care to give an example - and demonstrate that there is no underlying bias to this rule?

And how you measure the degree and detail of the measured comparability in a quantitative manner
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117070
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowboy Proposed Rule No. 2: "If a controlled, measured. detailed, and direct comparable analogy can be made from something complex that is observed and verified to be designed by intellegent agency with the biological test object under consideration, then one must consider it a candidate as such with the probability of intelligent design in direct relation to the degree and detail of the measured comparability."
Analogy, huh? In other words "Humans make computers therefore God make humans!"

Or "Humans make cars therefore God make humans!"

Or "Humans make houses therefore God make humans!"

But never "God make humans because it used this mechanism in this way and here is the observable testable evidence!"

(sigh)

So how does the complexity measuring tool work exactly, Urbs?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117071
Feb 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What does a virus have to do with self organization of DNA? I'm only trying to spare you further embarrassment.
By embarrassing yourself.

Since you can provide no intelligent mechanisms nor an objective method of measuring "specified complexity" then self-organization of DNA is not unreasonable since that IS what's observed.

The problem is you are operating on the assumption that "organization" is deliberate. Biology does not operate on that assumption, it operates on the mechanisms of biochemistry. Hence why if something goes wrong in the transcription process they MAY lead to problems, or occasionally even death. That too is observed. But it ain't the rule, as is also observed.

You decided to finally admit you were lying about your 4 years of biology training yet?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117072
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowboy Proposed Rule No. 2: "If a controlled, measured. detailed, and direct comparable analogy can be made from something complex that is observed and verified to be designed by intellegent agency with the biological test object under consideration, then one must consider it a candidate as such with the probability of intelligent design in direct relation to the degree and detail of the measured comparability."
Fortunately, you don't make the rules for how science works. Otherwise, we'd be asking bees their opinions about home construction.
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117073
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because our time is much better spent on the actual science rather than waste it on the biased, hyped-up, exaggerated version of an already wrong theory by a bunch of crazed voodoo darwin zombees with an axe to grind.
But, creationists don't do any actual research, so...
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117074
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have forgotten more about evolution that you will ever learn. And none of my 99 reasons have ever been refuted here. You can't just say it's been refuted without ever having refuted it. You have to actually say something. You sure have a lot of comments next to your name but you hardly ever say anything.
Still can't help but lie. You conceded that at least one of your nonsensical list was invalid and dropped it, then promptly added something else. And, that doesn't take into account all the logical fallacies that you choose to ignore in favor of obstinate repetition.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117075
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the time arrow of entropy where we see that every last thing in the whole universe is slowing deteriorating towards less complexity. The genomes of all living organisms no exception.
And is a zygote MORE or LESS complex than a fully grown human being? The DNA is just as complex but its atomic make up is FAR more complex. Biological development therefore INCREASES complexity. Also the addition of energy (food) prevents entropy from reaching critical mass for as long as a century. Therefore does not affect biological reproduction. During which we DO observe accumulative changes. And since entropy is not a problem unless it reaches critical mass BEFORE reproduction can take place, the SLoT is insufficient to prevent evolution. So while universal entropy is increasing as a whole, it won't be until FAR into the future when energy has ran out that local decreases in entropy cannot occur.

In other words - Fundie SLoT FAIL.
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117076
Feb 13, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what I'm taking about, do you?
Since there's nothing on Snorting pigeons.com for you to clumsily look up about this subject
.....you're essentially stuffed
Well, you have no idea what you're talking about, so what hope have we to figure it out for you?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117077
Feb 13, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge.
How is refuting your claim a dodge?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117078
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
A controlled analogy !!!
Care to give an example - and demonstrate that there is no underlying bias to this rule?
And how you measure the degree and detail of the measured comparability in a quantitative manner
It would depend on the object being compared but for any object there would have to be criteria established that covers each of its attributes. For example, there are things that work just like "motors" in molecular biology (ATP Synthase, Bacterial Flagellum, etc.) If you documented all of its attributes, i.e., parts, fit, function, rotation, direction, etc., and compared each of the attributes to a motor, this be a controlled, measured, and detailed analogy and the probability of it being intelligently designed would be in direct relationship to the number of matching attributes established.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,001 - 114,020 of171,259
|
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.

17 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 10 min ChromiuMan 1,250
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min KAB 133,147
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 55 min MikeF 111,973
Intelligent Design - Deist style (Dec '09) 3 hr FREE SERVANT 51
Science News (Sep '13) Fri positronium 2,822
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) Jul 10 DanFromSmithville 358
Plan your Relocation needs with Packers and Mov... Jul 7 shashi12 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••