Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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

#117255 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny ha ha
Cradling a limp SETMAR and rocking back and forth
...that's not the evidence I have been patiently seeking
Never mind
As per your immutable fanatical doctrine...
We have millions of years......
So
I'll wait

LOL. YOU seeking EVIDENCE!? As if.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117256 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Notwithstanding the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in the Cambrian WITH no ancestral fossils

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.

Now look it up if you need to.

That creatures appeared "fully formed" in the Cambrian with no ancestral fossils is a LIE. It is a KNOWN LIE.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> There should have been a huge amount of diversification, first to form new species, then new genera, then new families....then new phyla...as suggested by your evo-high priest Dawkins in regards to molluscs and crustaceans

There was. That is exactly what happened.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Or: increasing diversity of the lower taxa --species---should preceded the disparity of the higher taxa---phyla--
Instead there is a wide disparity between the taxa and LOW species diversity
Otherwise put:
The disparity of the higher taxa---phyla---precedes the diversity of the lower taxa such as species
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/index-pal...
That's the whole point about the fossil record and the Cambrian in particular is that the phyla appear out of nowhere!

Again, a lie. It ignores the precambrian. It ignores the fact that over 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> There is no record of a diversity of species becoming specialised over time into the different phyla

Another incorrect statement. Seriously, where do you get this stuff. Have you never had a real science class???
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nested hierarchies and the like??
All of this phylogenetic 'science' is based on evolutionary assumptions

Why can't Russell learn? Nested hierarchies is not based on an assumption. Nested hierarchies are based on observations of the fossil record, of observations of living species, and is confirmed in the genetic record. Most creationists know that nested hierarchies and simply say (in some manor) goddoneit.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Check the literature out yourself
You get inconsistent, unreliable results because it is a bogus notion based on faulty assumptions

LOL. see above.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations are NOT enough to explain the diversity in nature

LOL. Again, you creationists don't even know the mechanisms of evolution of which mutation is only one. That is very funny.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
In additions, as I have routinely said
4.5 billions years ain't enough time......

Actually, it is more than enough time. Of bigger concern to science is why evolution typically occurs as slowly as it does.\



Bottom line. You don't know anything about evolution. You are a collage of creationist misinformation and disinformation. You are afraid of real science because you know what it shows so you stay as far away from it as possible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117257 Feb 14, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Not that you don't care. Not smart enough to absorb the truth. It takes intelligence to know intelligence. Human knowledge and technology along with text books will never be sufficient enough for contact.
Which means only two things:

1 - You're an advanced alien who was dumb enough to blow his cover.

2 - You're a human who doesn't know a anything more about it than the rest of us and are therefore potentially certifiable.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117258 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny ha ha
Cradling a limp SETMAR and rocking back and forth
...that's not the evidence I have been patiently seeking
Never mind
As per your immutable fanatical doctrine...
We have millions of years......
So
I'll wait
And you will. You're waiting at a bus stop waiting for the Creation bus that's been derelict for centuries.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117259 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
I have just disputed them
And have done so before
You can dispute anything you like. Creationists dispute reality. They're incapable of addressing it though.(shrug)
Russell wrote:
Time and time again
And I am not the only one
Perhaps the least of them all
Correct. Your baseless religious opinions are irrelevant.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117260 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore
Darker skinned people are less evolved??
Yes?
Nope. Anyone who makes such a claim doesn't understand evolution.

Nice try at ad hom though.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the Adam and Eve story couldn't possibly be any more racist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117261 Feb 14, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Its how evolutionary biologists have interpreted the paper regarding HLA-DRB
It all there on PubMed...
Again
Not what I was talking about in MY posts
You're not actually talking about anything in your posts. All you're doing is pointing to research demonstrating evolution done by evolutionary biologists you disagree with using methods you think are flawed and who state that their work demonstrates evolution so you pick out a word that sounds technical therefore evolution is wrong even though you don't have an explanation.
Russell wrote:
Thanks for your valuable insights, Bud

H-E-T-E-R-O-P-L-A-S-M-Y
G-O-D-M-A-G-I-C
Russell wrote:
Trillion galaxies are just hydrogen and dirt
No, they are complex phenomena displaying high levels of CSI. Therefore everything displays high levels of CSI. Therefore you have nothing with a low CSI to provide an objective comparison. Therefore your position is non-falsifiable pseudo-scientific bullshite.
One way or another

United States

#117262 Feb 14, 2013
As always, the Evo childish clique is all talk and no proof. They've been here for years and not one of them has had a thought all their own.

Poor brainwashed children.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#117263 Feb 14, 2013
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.
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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#117264 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.
On the contrary. Chim saying he/we "don't know" as it pertains to areas of science that are ambiguous at best is exceedingly honest.

For science to say definitively that "hypothesis 'A' is fact -- when this 'fact' has yet to be established, is quite dishonest.

But then again, fundimentalists -- such as yourself -- have a hard time dealing with uncertainty. It's a known trait of the highly religious personality, the "need for closure".

Overview
"... people who deal with religious contents in a literal way have a higher need for closure than people who deal with religious content in a symbolical way because they need to avoid ambiguity or are unwilling to have their beliefs confronted by alternative opinions.

Thus, apparently, whereas religious belief as such seems to be associated with a preference for order and structure as well as predictability, it is those who deal with religious content in a literal way who are incapable of dealing with alternative opinions."

https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0016732/bartdur...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117265 Feb 14, 2013
Alien outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>A trillion galaxies in the universe. And, a bible character had nothing in creating any of it.....except in the minds of the primitive human.Who made aliens? Who made God? Proof....experience. Any pics or videos of God? Project God Book? SETI...searching for God? Evolution.....humans evolved from knuckle draggers.........Please, utilize the logic that the aliens provided. So, they left the human comprehension levels at near zero......think. Scientists know, Scientology knows and we know. Look around, humans label themselves "Experts"....really? The gullible human animal is easily brainwashed including the experts.
But, no evidence. Nobody cares about your claims. We only care about evidence. If you don't present evidence, everything you say is dismissed as the ramblings of a mad man.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117266 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.
Is it more honest to say "I don't know" or to make shit up?

What was George Washington's favorite food? Answer that honestly. You can either say, "I don't know," or you can make something up. Which of those would be the honest answer?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117267 Feb 14, 2013
One way or another wrote:
As always, the Evo childish clique is all talk and no proof. They've been here for years and not one of them has had a thought all their own.
Poor brainwashed children.
Cat piss / carpet tack strips
Spin = gravity
everything else you post repeatedly

All talk and no proof. You've had thoughts all your own, but delusions aren't worthwhile thoughts.
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?

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) 16 min DanFromSmithville 160,805
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,670
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Dogen 141,277
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Dogen 1,338
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Fri Ooogah Boogah 13,668
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
Evolution Debunked (Jan '08) Apr 21 rationalreasoner 278
More from around the web