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.

HTS

Sidney, MT

#117268 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get these lies????? ALL of the lifeforms of the Cambrian have ancestors in the Proterozoic (Ediacaran) period.
Read the above sentence again.
What a load of pure BS. Please provide scientific proof that cambrian lifeforms had ancestors in the proterozoic period. Bedtime stories do not constitute science.
One way or another

United States

#117269 Feb 14, 2013
While live and let live is not in the Evo morons lexicon, nor manners, nor intelligence, nor care even for science, it seems their one goal is to help gov, media and the courts to destroy religious power, which could be a good thing, in bringing back what should be the true nature of what might better represent the biblical representation of god and of course, the fact that if gov squires all the power by its ongoing campaign to destroy religion and grab Ll power for itself, do you think that will be a good thing, from what we know
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117270 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS. Please provide scientific proof that cambrian lifeforms had ancestors in the proterozoic period. Bedtime stories do not constitute science.
Hilda, why are you asking for evidence which you have absolutely no interest in whatsoever anyway?

How many times have I presented the evidence for evolution to you?

Lots.

How many times have you presented a rational rebuttal and not just "Nuh-UH!!!"

ZERO.

Anyway, here's some more of what you're not interested in:

http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117271 Feb 14, 2013
One way or another wrote:
While live and let live is not in the Evo morons lexicon, nor manners, nor intelligence, nor care even for science, it seems their one goal is to help gov, media and the courts to destroy religious power, which could be a good thing, in bringing back what should be the true nature of what might better represent the biblical representation of god and of course, the fact that if gov squires all the power by its ongoing campaign to destroy religion and grab Ll power for itself, do you think that will be a good thing, from what we know
Yes Jimbo, we're all part of the evil worldwide atheist Jewish conspiracy. All controlled by our evil intelligent bacteria overlords. You know what happened to the Martians, right? Planned.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117272 Feb 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And enough of this cop out "I don't know". And don't say "we" because you can't speak for anyone but yourself. Saying you have no opinion when you do is simply being dishonest.

Actually, putting words in peoples mouths is dishonest.

He never says he has no opinion, now does he?

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "starting premise" at all, chronologically. The only starting premise of science is that we can create meaningful theories from what is observed in the physical world, and this has proven to be a very powerful and useful premise to mankind.
We do not assume nothing + nobody = everything. We say...and it gets tiresome to repeat the obvious to you, but it never sinks in...we do not know. Our scientific knowledge of the world does not start from the "beginning", it starts from the most immediate and accessible observations and moves outward from there...including backward, more distant, smaller, larger, as far as the range of our observations and experiments and instruments and rational thought can take us.
Enough of this trite strawman n+n=e you keep popping out at irregular intervals. If anything, it merely shows how little you understand anything about science. But at least that would explain why you keep mistaking pseudoscience for the real thing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117273 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS. Please provide scientific proof that cambrian lifeforms had ancestors in the proterozoic period. Bedtime stories do not constitute science.

How dishonest of you! I posted information with references and links and you just cut them out and stated the above.

You need to learn what you are talking about before you talk and you will not need to stoop to such deceit (or at least not as often).
One way or another

United States

#117274 Feb 14, 2013
Aww the childish morons don't address the subjects. They merely change the subject. Oh we'll, we can't expect any better from childish morons.

By the bye, what good has come of the evolution movement, that would not have come about without it?
One way or another

United States

#117275 Feb 14, 2013
The childish Evo morons here act just like the childish morons running this country into the ground and giving away most of the middle class jobs in manufacturing. They rely on other people to protect them when they say and do stupid things. Standing on their own two feet is not something they can do. They offer nothing of value.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117276 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Having healthy and strong germ cells is mandatory to produce a viable zygote, so why would harmful viral-infected egg/sperm cells be considered more fit (positive selection) versus ones without retroviral DNA?
Apoptosis is an accepted biological phenomenon, so why wouldn’t most germ cells with viral-infected DNA be eliminated?
“Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, is a normal component of the development and health of multicellular organisms. Cells die in response to a variety of stimuli and during apoptosis they do so in a controlled, regulated fashion … The latter occurs when T-cells recognise damaged or virus infected cells and initiate apoptosis in order to prevent damaged cells from becoming neoplastic (cancerous) or virus-infected cells from spreading the infection.”
Why and by what mechanism do you propose a lack of T-cell mediated immune response to infection in a germ cell?
And why only ERVs?
Why not other viruses?
The ERV's that get passed on for many generations are passed on because the immune system DOES NOT HAVE A MECHANISM to counteract their infection. The reproductive ability of any virus is affected by its negative result on the host. The more damage it does, the less ability it has to infect a new host. So the ERV's that produce neutral or positive results are likely to be the most persistent.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#117277 Feb 14, 2013
Didn't you just complain about "changing the subject"?

Derrrrr
One way or another

United States

#117278 Feb 14, 2013
Lets see how the media and others are destroying intelligent thought. Look at the first definition from the web and the morons at Princeton and the second from Merriam-Webster dictionary.

The web,--
Web definitions
of or being or relating to or involving cognition; "cognitive psychology"; "cognitive style".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Merriam--Cognitive - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...
www.merriam-webster.com/.../cognitiveof , relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)...

Notice how Princeton marries cognition; "cognitive psychology"; "cognitive style"., creating a loop they can control however they choose?

Then look at the Merriam definition and --
involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)...

The media and science are changing the definition of ---varve, to fit whatever it chooses, trying to add legitimacy to the stupidity it chooses.

There was another deceitful change for another word, but forgot it at the moment. Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117279 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists routinely shy away from origins of life because there is no way life could have "poofed" itself into existence via naturalistic means
Stating that the concept of abiogenesis does not affect evolution.
Well, why not start the discussion with the 'first' cell
Here it is....
It could be mycoplasma..
Small --relatively--genome
Coding only for what it needs
Its our ancestor
By what process does this cell develop the DNA for hair, eyes, teeth, bones and a pancreas?
Where does the additional DNA come from?
All cells, all organs are made from adenine, cytosine, guanine and thyimin. Different combinations produce different results. Each generation produces slight changes. One generation's cilia millions of years later is another generation's fur or hair.

Some mutations are the result of making additional copies of the same gene, and the additional copies are just as subject to mutation as the original. So what was once cilia in one generation might be teeth millions of years later in another generation. The only limit to the possibilities of novel change is the limit of what can survive to reproduce.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117280 Feb 14, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The ERV's that get passed on for many generations are passed on because the immune system DOES NOT HAVE A MECHANISM to counteract their infection. The reproductive ability of any virus is affected by its negative result on the host. The more damage it does, the less ability it has to infect a new host. So the ERV's that produce neutral or positive results are likely to be the most persistent.
You missed the point. If natural selection can cull out less fit individuals, how did ERVs become incorporated in species?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117281 Feb 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you don't know what a maternity ward is it's where babies are born. As a result of self-organizing DNA.
At least apparently self-organizing. It is always possible that there may be an intelligence behind the whole process.
If so then can you please provide the scientific mechanisms responsible and the evidence for them?
Thanks in advance for never bothering.
I now permit you to whine like a beeyach some more for not accepting your IDC claims at face value.
Sure, why not. Maybe billions of years ago the then-current elected president of the universe decided to do something very special for his/her/it's administration and may have signed into universal natural law the rule of From-Goo-To-You. And once the law was passed and life was initiated, other more important matters (like passing a mandatory speed for light) took the forefront. I mean heck, with a new president of the universe being elected every four years, a lot can get lost over a few billion years.
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#117282 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the point. If natural selection can cull out less fit individuals, how did ERVs become incorporated in species?
They know, but they won't address what they can't defend, but you already know that.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117283 Feb 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilda, why are you asking for evidence which you have absolutely no interest in whatsoever anyway?
How many times have I presented the evidence for evolution to you?
Lots.
How many times have you presented a rational rebuttal and not just "Nuh-UH!!!"
ZERO.
Anyway, here's some more of what you're not interested in:
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
You are behaving like a spineless atheist... Posting a link that you haven't read, thinking that in so doing you will refute my argument. If you can't articulate what you believe,, don't bother attempting to set up smokescreens. There is no proof of your baseless claims.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117284 Feb 14, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All cells, all organs are made from adenine, cytosine, guanine and thyimin. Different combinations produce different results. Each generation produces slight changes. One generation's cilia millions of years later is another generation's fur or hair.
Some mutations are the result of making additional copies of the same gene, and the additional copies are just as subject to mutation as the original. So what was once cilia in one generation might be teeth millions of years later in another generation. The only limit to the possibilities of novel change is the limit of what can survive to reproduce.
Storytelling is not science. Where did you come up with the ridiculous notion that cilia are ancestral to hair?
HTS

Williston, ND

#117285 Feb 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
How dishonest of you! I posted information with references and links and you just cut them out and stated the above.
You need to learn what you are talking about before you talk and you will not need to stoop to such deceit (or at least not as often).
like a good little DarwinBot, you posted links that you don't understand, naively believing that I'll take the bait. I'm well familiar with your tactics. Your worn out tactics don't work.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117286 Feb 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that H2O is not a code? Is H2O water? Or is a water a combination of elements that we have arbitrarily labelled hydrogen and oxygen which we then in turn put in a more shorthand form in the code of H2O? EXACTLY the same as we did with the chemicals adenine, cytosine, guanine and thyimine as ACGT? Are they not chemicals? Are hydrogen and oxygen not also chemical elements? Do none of these react with each other via chemical processes?
Also keep in mind here that I'm not arguing against deliberate intent. You are more than free to propose an intelligent agent being responsible for any and all of these things.
It's just we've been waiting for 6 months for you to even tell us what those mechanisms are, much less provide any evidence.
Sure. Drop a nail in a lake. H20 is coded to oxidise nails.
Mugwump

UK

#117287 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the point. If natural selection can cull out less fit individuals, how did ERVs become incorporated in species?
Explain how ERVs make an individual less fit

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Paul Porter1 171,851
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Paul Porter1 20,620
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Chimney1 142,630
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 3 hr Chimney1 38
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 4 hr Chimney1 268
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 4 hr Chimney1 248
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 15 hr Paul Porter1 9
More from around the web