Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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

Mandan, ND

#117543 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no need to. You have posted this nonsense before and it was refuted before.
You have earned the idiot badge by not even undertaking the very simple chore of understanding what constitutes scientific evidence and why it is defined in the way it is defined.
Your pathetic attempts to evade the legitimate concerns I've raised only demonstrate your cowardly commitment to your religion.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117544 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
What I predict above is exactly what the Evo morons do. They see a pattern start to emerge and then they claim to make predictions.
Anyone with half a brain can do it, hence the BS Evo scientists, predictions.
Walter Remine, in his book Biotic Message, put it this way... "Evolution adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape."
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117545 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Typical atheist BS.....
Not at all, just want to know why humans pray to a bible charater? See, all that God/ Devil BS is hogwash.....or brainwash.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117546 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you seriously studied the literature you would understand that the "DNA-is-everything" paradigm is now proven false by the ENCODE project. Why don't you evaluate scientific results and humbly admit that your atheistic intuitions are false?
Abiogenesis is something you cannot dodge. If you claim that God had no part in the creation of species, you have to explain how life could have begun without God... Simply divorcing yourself from the subject is intellectually dishonest.
...and another thing... Where do you draw the line between life and non-life. Given your paradigm of complete relativism, at what point does the theory of evolution start?
HTS, until you show that you can learn the simplest of science there is no point in arguing with you. All you will do is to bring up claims of yours that have been refuted time after time. The best you could do is to deny the evidence. How can you understand the papers that you merely scan the abstracts of at best when you cannot understand the simplest ideas of how science works.

And you again make several mistakes with your idiotic abiogenesis claim. God himself could have come down and made the first cell. It does not matter. Whether it was totally natural, ET, or god, they are all abiogenesis events. We know that abiogenesis happened, we just don't know how. Even the most retarded of creationists believes that there was some sort of abiogenesis. Please note the "no god" part of your claim is a straw man on your part. Try again.

If you want to learn we will help you. Otherwise all I have to do to debunk your idiocy is to point out he simple fact that you cannot do the science so your opinion is worthless.
One way or another

United States

#117547 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Walter Remine, in his book Biotic Message, put it this way... "Evolution adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape."
I would have said it differently ---but, that will do nicely.
One way or another

United States

#117548 Feb 16, 2013
Humanoid wrote:
<quoted text>Not at all, just want to know why humans pray to a bible charater? See, all that God/ Devil BS is hogwash.....or brainwash.
Prove it. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying, prove what you claim.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117549 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your pathetic attempts to evade the legitimate concerns I've raised only demonstrate your cowardly commitment to your religion.
Wrong again. Are you trying for idiot of the year?

Once again, either show that you can learn or there is no point in doing anything more than saying how your idiocy has already been debunked.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117550 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have been zealously evo-babbling on this forum for months, and have yet to "demonstrate" anything. Your incessant parroting of bedtime stories isn't fooling anyone.
Actually I have. All you do then is demonstrate a severe misunderstanding of the concept and call everything you disagree with "bedtime stories". You aren't even capable of discussing the subject.(shrug)
One way or another

United States

#117551 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
HTS, until you show that you can learn the simplest of science there is no point in arguing with you. All you will do is to bring up claims of yours that have been refuted time after time. The best you could do is to deny the evidence. How can you understand the papers that you merely scan the abstracts of at best when you cannot understand the simplest ideas of how science works.
And you again make several mistakes with your idiotic abiogenesis claim. God himself could have come down and made the first cell. It does not matter. Whether it was totally natural, ET, or god, they are all abiogenesis events. We know that abiogenesis happened, we just don't know how. Even the most retarded of creationists believes that there was some sort of abiogenesis. Please note the "no god" part of your claim is a straw man on your part. Try again.
If you want to learn we will help you. Otherwise all I have to do to debunk your idiocy is to point out he simple fact that you cannot do the science so your opinion is worthless.
You don't know shit and more over, you can't prove it.

Get lost moron.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117552 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
Dude, you consistely dodge all legitimate concerns that are posed. For natural selection to preserve an ERV insertion, that organism that has been so endowed has to be functionally superior to all other non-infected members of the species. How does a worthless segment of inserted DNA impart a survival advantage. Any random manipulation of genetic code would result in an inferior outcome... at least such would be predicted by evolution.
No, it wouldn't. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial.

Of course BECAUSE you don't know anything about evolution you did not know this.

Either that or you DO know this and are LYING when you claim evolution predicts what you say it would.

So which are you? Ignorant or dishonest?

.

Answer - YES.
HTS wrote:
Why are you bringing up marsupials vs placental mammals?
Because it's not just me who knows more about evolutionary biology than you, Skippy the bush Kangaroo does too.

See, if you knew ANYTHING AT ALL about the subject you would KNOW why I mentioned it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117553 Feb 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of it.
Except I didn't.

Chemistry papers demonstrating an old Earth are peer-reviewed. Physics papers demonstrating an old Earth are peer-reviewed. Biology papers demonstrating evolution are peer-reviewed. Sure, you disagree with them (only for theological reasons mind) but that doesn't mean that they have not been peer-reviewed.

And your position IS that of invisible Jewmagic.

Hence everything I said in that post was 100% accurate.

That's why you didn't even attempt to address it.

Just like many posts you've avoided from many many people on this thread.

For years.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117554 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know shit and more over, you can't prove it.
Get lost moron.
Don't worry Jimbo, your crown is safe. No one will take away your crown of perpetual idiot supreme. In fact if we do declare someone to be idiot of the year he is in reality in second place behind you.

It gets too boring to give the award to the same person all of the time.

Hey! How did you Valentine's Day date with the hooker go?
One way or another

United States

#117555 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it wouldn't. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial.
Of course BECAUSE you don't know anything about evolution you did not know this.
Either that or you DO know this and are LYING when you claim evolution predicts what you say it would.
So which are you? Ignorant or dishonest?
.
Answer - YES.
<quoted text>
Because it's not just me who knows more about evolutionary biology than you, Skippy the bush Kangaroo does too.
See, if you knew ANYTHING AT ALL about the subject you would KNOW why I mentioned it.
You're a maroon dudette, but you know that. Run along child.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117556 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Walter Remine, in his book Biotic Message, put it this way... "Evolution adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape."
And why should we listen to what electrical engineers have to say about biology?
One way or another

United States

#117557 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except I didn't.
Chemistry papers demonstrating an old Earth are peer-reviewed. Physics papers demonstrating an old Earth are peer-reviewed. Biology papers demonstrating evolution are peer-reviewed. Sure, you disagree with them (only for theological reasons mind) but that doesn't mean that they have not been peer-reviewed.
And your position IS that of invisible Jewmagic.
Hence everything I said in that post was 100% accurate.
That's why you didn't even attempt to address it.
Just like many posts you've avoided from many many people on this thread.
For years.
Nothing provable, just like the rest of evolutions BS.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117558 Feb 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you ought to trademark that phrase: "After all, it's all just part of the evil worldwide atheist Darwinist evolutionist Liberal socialist Communist Nazi gayhomo anti-Christian God-hating, Satan-worshipping, baby-eating Jewish Illuminati conspiracy."
Could I use it sometime???
:-)
Aye, it's one I use from time to time. By all means, have fun with it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117559 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You employ two fallacies in the above statement:
1. You attempt to prove evolution by arguing that God is more implausible.
2. You think that "consensus" is "science". Every scientific breakthrough in history began by challenging
consensus.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Actually we do, since you have yet to challenge the consensus.

You just keep accusing us all of being "mean old atheists" instead.

Even those of us who aren't atheists.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117560 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
From HTS
Complete BS. Non-coding does not mean "non-functional". Your entire junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
Except it hasn't. HTS has been promoting that lie for months, but never addressed the fact that the genome's function is not a prediction of common ancestry, but rather the pattern of inheritance. And that is what we see in the genome. Non-coding doesn't have to necessarily mean non-functional, ie: chicken teeth due to non-coding DNA *could* be argued to be "functional". Either way though it's one that backs up evolution, not creationism.

Then he forgets that we got SIFTER which predicts protein function with 96% accuracy while HTS's alternative predicts it with 0% accuracy. Because uh, he doesn't HAVE an alternative. On top of THAT, the premise of creationism is that humans have all suffered "genomic deterioration" since TEH FALL! Meaning that any creo "prediction" of 100% genome function is at odds with their theology. Neither HTS or Cowboy have been able to address that either.

Of course all of this is utterly moot since their "scientific" position is that everything was magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117561 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your regurgitated atheist BS is getting annoying. The "mountains of scientific evidence" of which you speak is non-existent. You can keep parroting the same worn out cliches, but you haven't proven anything.
You keep projecting your own failures onto others.

Seems you're only here for the same reasons Cowboy and Markie are - just to know that there are mean old evo's who disagree with you, and as long as they are there then your belief in that good old line from Romans is enough to validate your theology.

Us infidels make you feel better by feeding your ego.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117562 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You haven't examined all of the evidence. You have categorically rejected it because of your atheistic religion.
Then what evidence has been left unexamined that scientifically demonstrates the existence of invisible magical Jewish wizardry?

Do tell.

.

Because uh, the other day I thought you said that there wasn't any.

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) 1 hr Endofdays 79,758
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Science 32,576
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 hr Agents of Corruption 222,728
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 hr Science 163,695
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
What's your religion? Sep 8 Ateesiks 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web