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 5,741)

Showing posts 114,801 - 114,820 of168,757
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117871
Feb 18, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you have to ask me? Why don't you just read the damn paper?
Well that was WHY he was asking the question...
urban cowboy

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117872
Feb 18, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No kidding. They did after all possibly go down to a population of around 20. If I recall it would be around 50 would be the bare minimum bottleneck to allow for recovery.
Not that I have any idea how any of this is relevant to you though. After all, you think recovery is possible with populations of just 2. Or 8. And with sisters involved.
Yikes.
Man, you are clueless.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117873
Feb 18, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, dickhead, I've worked on ranging systems. I've engineered their installations. I know quite a LOT about them. I and others have already explained the science behind this in virtual baby talk. You just an arrogant, little idiot who simply refuses to learn anything.
You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the wang. If you even have one.
What you claim is worthless when in here, you talk and act like a one sided moron. Run along moron.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117874
Feb 18, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not. I am falsifying his claims by appealing to an experiment demonstrating a result that according to Sanford's own thesis, should be impossible. Haven't you grasped that yet?
Muller's Ratchet, the postulated one way increase in entropy and loss of fitness over many generations, is the CORE of Sanford. His reasoning is that novel deleterious mutations continue to accumulate faster than natural selection can ever clear them away. That is PURE SANFORD, not "evolutionary presuppositions".
And if a degraded population recovers, with no fresh infusion of "fit genes" from outside, simply by the reintroduction of natural selection, Sanford is falsified at the very CORE of his thesis.
The final arbiter is NOT your love of the "irrefutable" elegance of Sanford's hypothesis, nor "evolutionary suppositions". Its the simple fact that his thesis makes predictions that FAIL under direct experimental results.
Good grief, do you understand how science works AT ALL?
HTS has had four years medical training.

Apparently.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117875
Feb 18, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I did - I couldn't see the where a 'fit' population was reintroduced - it seems you can't either...... Which begs the question why you said it did
And why ask you? Weeellll, you made the claim - simple really.
UC is looking for any possible angle to dismiss this...they MUST have introduced fresh blood! Because otherwise, uh oh, its true. Sanford is falsified!

He would be better off sticking to the Bible than relying on guys like Sanford. At least the Bible is allowed to use magic to get around any falsification tests. No such luck when a scientist like Sanford creates a hypothesis that makes specific claims that can be proven false!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117876
Feb 18, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
These were isolated populations in the lab - no mixing with outsider nematodes. Fitness recovered. Sanford is falsified.
Failed consideration - Jewish conspiracy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117877
Feb 18, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Define"precious" within your atheistic paradigm, devoid of absolutes. Atheists see life as an accident... A fortuitous assemblage of molecules.

You are very strange.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/03/a...

BTW, as I have mentioned, I am not an atheist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117878
Feb 18, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
groan....what happened to that ningnong anyway?
Merged with Russ and annihilated each other out of corporeal existence?

Hey, I can hope for miracles too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117879
Feb 18, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing and nobody plus billions of years equals everything!

Why do you repeat things that have blown up in your fact, like the above?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117880
Feb 18, 2013
 
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, you are clueless.
I guess so, if you say so. Why can't you ever demonstrate though? How come it's always a no-no?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117881
Feb 18, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What you claim is worthless when in here, you talk and act like a one sided moron. Run along moron.
Nice try. You're still a world class idiot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117882
Feb 18, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What you claim is worthless when in here, you talk and act like a one sided moron. Run along moron.
Ahh, shaddap Jimbo.
Mugwump

Workington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117883
Feb 18, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
UC is looking for any possible angle to dismiss this...they MUST have introduced fresh blood! Because otherwise, uh oh, its true. Sanford is falsified!
He would be better off sticking to the Bible than relying on guys like Sanford. At least the Bible is allowed to use magic to get around any falsification tests. No such luck when a scientist like Sanford creates a hypothesis that makes specific claims that can be proven false!
Nah, he insists that's what the paper says - he just seems unwilling to point out where

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117884
Feb 18, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
Researchers in multiple scientific fields of are abandoning Darwinism in large numbers because the theory contradicts laws of science. Biologist Dr. Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian institute, observed that the evolutionary hypothesis is falling out of favor because it's claims cannot be reconciled with science...
"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and anti-Darwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation."
*(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr.[Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecologyt and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495).

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!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117885
Feb 18, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford's observations are a death blow to Darwinism, and his scientific credentials are impeccable. He started out as an atheist. After over two decades of research in plant breeding, he concluded that NDT is utter BS.

????

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.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117886
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...and why would we expect a new sequence of random mutations along with natural selection of those mutations to produce the SAME phenotypic result again? Is this your flawed understanding of "repeatable"?
How about this: Its a repeatable experiment that a fair coin tossed 1000 times will produce approximately 500 heads and 500 tails. However, you could do the experiment 100 times and its exceedingly unlikely that you would ever have the SAME sequence (e.g. HHTHHTTTTH etc) repeated twice.
WHAT is repeatable? Recovery.
WHAT is unique? The particular random sequence of mutations available for selection, that drive each recovery event.
...and any significant degree of recovery AT ONCE falsifies Sanford's hypothesis that genetic entropy is a one-way street that natural selection cannot reverse.
<quoted text>
They would not HAVE to ALWAYS recover fitness to falsify Sanford. That they should do so EVER, is enough to falsify Sanford's genetic entropy hypothesis as laid out in his book.
<quoted text>
And the problem is?
<quoted text>
The very first sentence there completely falsifies Sanford. The rest is exactly what you would expect in a process where the source of new variation is random and of course the previous "historical loss of fitness", the starting point, is unique too.
<quoted text>
Actually, EXACTLY as I like. Because IF the process yielded exactly the same results every time, it would be evidence AGAINST non-directed, randomly sourced evolutionary change. In fact if the response was the same every time, we would then suspect that the driving force was a pre-programmed adaptive response, NOT evolutionary adaptation.
So thanks, you have merely offered further confirmation that both
1. Sanford was falsified and
2. Evolution is a process driven by random genetic change, not pre-programmed adaptation.
And I am even bothering to argue with a YEC nutcase because? Until you get over that bit of Santa Clausery, I cannot even see the point of arguing any other SCIENCE with you.
Nice try, Bud

But this is just another carcass road kill on the evo-highway going no where..

Its antibiotic resistance all over again...

Like the rapid pesticide resistance in the same creature de-bunked ages ago

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117888
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117889
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117890
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,801 - 114,820 of168,757
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••