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 5,731)

Showing posts 114,601 - 114,620 of171,191
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117672
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have the gall to demand mechanisms? Tell me the "mechanisms" of the evolution of migratory instincts in whales... All you can say is "mutations + natural selection + millions of years = migratory instincts. Do you even know how whales migrate? Do you know what genes code for those instincts? Do you know the mechanisms of celestial navigation?
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?

While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.

Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117673
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And so?????
Corruption after the Fall is expected and perfectly well represented in Nature
Just as the Bible says
Also see this
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_...
Except that vitamin C is still vital for life.
So if we needed it before the fall then why don't we need it now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117674
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
Hand waving
Blithe
Smug
Hand waving
You can't help it.(shrug)
Russell wrote:
There is NO evolutionary proposal for the mechanism of the DESIGN of the ATP-ase
Bingo. Because design is your baseless claim.
Russell wrote:
Evo-tards ....like you...will retort.... as you have a multitude of time before
*....small screeching falsetto...*
"That proves nothing..
That just means that God diddit with Jewish magic...
Whinge.....whine....howl"
Give it up, the Dude
Don't need to. Since your position IS Goddidit with magic we already told you that you can't win. A stalemate would be the best you could hope for. Well, if it weren't for the fact you never address the evidence for evolution in the meantime that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117675
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.
Since we've addressed your lies so many times over now while you in turn fail to deal with rebuttals, the only rational conclusion is that you're just another typical dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117676
Feb 17, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
At least CHECK what you hurriedly provide as scathing irrefutable evidence for animalutionism
At least check they were saying what you pretend they were saying. Because it turns out they still think evolution was responsible while you apparently know more than them, even though they were using evolutionary science you reject and evidence is irrelevant to anyone who believes Goddidit with magic anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117677
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?

Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.

And you did this 6 months ago.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117678
Feb 17, 2013
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be dumb.
A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
Only if it was a smart designer. It does not falsify the possibility of a dumb designer.

HTS just can't make up his mind whether the designer was smart or dumb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117679
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.

And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117680
Feb 17, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

Remember there are more scientists name 'Steve' than there are creation supporters.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117681
Feb 17, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

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

LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117682
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?
Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.
And you did this 6 months ago.
If you would care to frame that statement in any other context, be my guest. You have been nailed... Why don't you just admit it?
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117683
Feb 17, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.
And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117684
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?
While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.
Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.
You always throw a hissy fit every time you've been nailed to the wall.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117685
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we can't tell if they're false or not, because you're not capable of even demonstrating it exists. So you're right, it's not a scientific argument. Because there's no such thing as scientific arguments against non-falsifiable concepts.
Duh.
Dude, you've just conceded defeat. You've finally acknowledged that imperfections is not a scientific argument. The imperfections argument if the backbone of almost all evidence for evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117686
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
Wrong, no false morality exists.

Why do you insist on saying stupid things HTS?

It seems that you trailed off at the end of your post, as if your idiocy was finally catching up to you.

Would you care to finish that thought?
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117687
Feb 17, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
Typical atheist BS... You cannot answer the question, so you cower behind a link.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117688
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You always throw a hissy fit every time you've been nailed to the wall.
HTS, you have never nailed anyone to the wall.

Why do these creatards ever think that they have made a valid point.

It is time to face reality. It is still illegal to teach creation in the schools. It is perfectly legal to teach evolution. That means as things stand we have won. For you to win you have to show how creation is backed up by science. It isn't.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117689
Feb 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?
o.
He's one of the few evolutionists who has a level of intellectual honesty.

Here's a rare example of an intellectually honest atheist.. Dr. George Wald, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1967:

“I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

*George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117690
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Don't presume to tell me what I believe.

He just spoke the truth. You fundies are so afraid of science, so afraid of reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117691
Feb 17, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
   For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne :
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary PREDICTION that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Now, please tell me how junk DNA is inconsistent with intelligent design... You cannot defend your position without bringing up religion.

Did you not understand the quote you posted? Dr. Coyne just explained it above.

I am confused that you are confused.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,601 - 114,620 of171,191
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••