Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179741 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117887 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, Bud
But this is just another carcass road kill on the evo-highway going no where..
Oh look, the Black Knight is back.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117888 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
Dr. Leigh's paper set the above quote up to refute it. Which he did.
Here is the whole paper. You might want to take special note of the conclusions.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12759...
My god! You blundered again!
You took the bait, Dogen. I knew you would pull out the "quotemine" card. Predictably, you have no answers. You simply parrot the same BS that has been proliferated on atheist websites.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117889 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
????
Sanford has long since been refuted. Is incorrect conjecture was stillborn and simply the result of his creationist bias, not science.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.
You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117890 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Just shy of 96% actually. No mistake. Didn't you read the link I gave you?
I never formulate opinons based on popularity. Scientific truth is established by experimentation, not consensus.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117891 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity CAN be defined in meaningful terms, but it can't be defined absolutely across the board. For example is a human more complex than a space shuttle? Depending on how it is defined you could argue both ways. And as long as both definitions had working objective methods for measuring complexity, both would be valid. But not necessarily one more valid than the other.
This is why your argument that "IT'S ALL TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE EVOLVED, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNEDED!!!" doesn't work.
Your never ending argument is: Prove that there is a God,... otherwise EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117892 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, he is dead-on-balls accurate (an industry term). Wiki explains very explicitly why you are wrong and links you directly to the primary research. Creationist misdating of dinosaur fossils is a joke.
If you categorically believe everything that's posted on the Wiki you're a naive fool.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117893 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you understood Sanford, you would know that the sexual selection you are referring to would not help, in the isolated population. Sanford claims that even with the help of this selection, it would still be a one way trip to genetic entropy and annihilation, and recovery of the population to ancestral fitness levels would be impossible. At best, this selection would slow the decline, but never be able to reverse it. That is Sanford's whole point.
And this experiment shows that he is wrong.
Please explain how the human genome or the genome of any animal can rid itself of 100+ deleterious mutations per generation when it only produces an average of three offspring per couple. I know what you're going to say... you think that most mutations are neutral... FALSE. The deleterious effect of most mutations cannot be measured.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117894 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
????
Sanford has long since been refuted. Is incorrect conjecture was stillborn and simply the result of his creationist bias, not science.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.
Darwin has long since been refuted.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117895 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your regurgitated argument from incredulty is abjectly stupid. You expect me to accept on faith anything that validates NDT. You think it's "unscientific" to question a theory that makes no sense...
You cling to your "evolution dun it" paradigm.

Evolution makes perfect sense from the perspective of science. It only makes no sense to those who do not really understand it.

That is the one constant I have seen from creationists over the years, that they really have never learned what the ToE really says and why it says what it does. This board would be dead if all creationists bothered to do that.

Until you bother to do that all your arguments are some form of argument from incredulity (aka argument from ignorance).
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117896 Feb 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, he insists that's what the paper says - he just seems unwilling to point out where
No one on this forum has actually offered ANY SCIENTIFIC LOGIC that refutes Sanford... all that's posted are broad meaningless statements that his work has been "debunked". Can anyone actually tell me how the human genome makes up for 100+ mutations per generation? Does someone actually think that these mutations are randomly occurring and that most of them are building up human DNA?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117897 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, the Black Knight is back.
Yea

Give us a shrug
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117898 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how the human genome or the genome of any animal can rid itself of 100+ deleterious mutations per generation when it only produces an average of three offspring per couple. I know what you're going to say... you think that most mutations are neutral... FALSE. The deleterious effect of most mutations cannot be measured.
If most deletarious effects can't be measured how can you say most mutations are harmful.

So .... Direct question , back up your claim that most mutations are harmful.

No babbling
No dodging
No insults

Just back up your claim (ill put my cricket pads on to protect my knees from attack)
urban cowboy

Miami, FL

#117899 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess so, if you say so. Why can't you ever demonstrate though? How come it's always a no-no?
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#117900 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No one on this forum has actually offered ANY SCIENTIFIC LOGIC that refutes Sanford... all that's posted are broad meaningless statements that his work has been "debunked". Can anyone actually tell me how the human genome makes up for 100+ mutations per generation? Does someone actually think that these mutations are randomly occurring and that most of them are building up human DNA?
It has been offered. You just dismiss it with a wave of your anti-science, anti-intellectual hand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117901 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Most scientists know that if they write so the entire community can read and understand their work, then they know that all those eyes will pick apart every tiny detail that is wrong.
However, that serves to dumb down the entire community.

Like what you do for us.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117902 Feb 18, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>It has been offered. You just dismiss it with a wave of your anti-science, anti-intellectual hand.
Contesting what's fasonable in academic circles is not "anti-science".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117903 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution makes perfect sense from the perspective of science. It only makes no sense to those who do not really understand it.
That is the one constant I have seen from creationists over the years, that they really have never learned what the ToE really says and why it says what it does. This board would be dead if all creationists bothered to do that.
Until you bother to do that all your arguments are some form of argument from incredulity (aka argument from ignorance).
You're an arrogant jackass. I've studied evolution for over thirty years. I've read extensively what is posted on talkorigins, and have read numerous scientific articles on proposals of abiogenesis. I have read very little from creationist sources.The entire unwieldy paradigm of evolution is complete BS.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117904 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.

Cowboy is the only one who even attempts to explain his canned responses.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117905 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your never ending argument is: Prove that there is a God,... otherwise EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
Not the case. Evolution did it because of the evidence. Ya know, that stuff you're unable to address. You then complain we're not taking divine intervention into account then whine like a wuss when we point out you have no evidence to present for it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117906 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how the human genome or the genome of any animal can rid itself of 100+ deleterious mutations per generation when it only produces an average of three offspring per couple. I know what you're going to say... you think that most mutations are neutral... FALSE. The deleterious effect of most mutations cannot be measured.
In that case you have no case from which to claim most are deleterious.

Oops.

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) 3 hr Serum1915 216,895
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Yep 154,816
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,824
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 hr GoTrump 1,047
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web