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 5,742)

Showing posts 114,821 - 114,840 of168,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117891
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117892
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117893
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117894
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117896
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117897
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, the Black Knight is back.
Yea

Give us a shrug
Mugwump

Workington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117899
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117903
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117908
Feb 18, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Darwin was 150 years ago. We're still waiting for you to catch up and refute what's known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117909
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".
No, what's been posted is a pretty thorough refutation by Chimney which includes peer-reviewed results falsifying Sanford's claims which were based on YEC apologetics anyway. Besides, every time you boys mention him you're STILL contradicting yourselves.
HTS wrote:
Can anyone actually tell me how the human genome makes up for 100+ mutations per generation?
Yes. Read back a few pages and it's there.
HTS wrote:
Does someone actually think that these mutations are randomly occurring and that most of them are building up human DNA?
Near as we can tell they are random. What does "building up" mean? Are you still working from the fallacy that evolution is goal-directed?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117911
Feb 18, 2013
 
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
If most deletarious effects can't be measured how can you say most mutations are harmful.
Easy. He just opens his mouth and the words just come right out.

Who said it had to be coherent?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117912
Feb 18, 2013
 
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Yeah I know. How silly of me to expect rational coherent counter-rebuttal when just a quick flippant comment saying "NO!" will do.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,821 - 114,840 of168,761
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••