Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,080

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." Read more

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117935 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stupid is showing.
Nope, when it comes to Sanford and the scientific community, a good laugh was had by all.
urban cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#117936 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, he says that the population would be just fine and that his story was all bullshit. Nice to hear. Either way Sanford loses.
You got it all wrong.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117937 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Let's look at Sanford's work again. He knew it was a failed idea so he skipped the peer review system.
For any reasonable person huge alarm bells would be going off already. Someone who has had papers successfully published using peer review avoids it this time around. What does he know that his readers don't know?
When scientists hear of his work they all have a good laugh. All he has is conjecture and unsupported claims. Now someone has done the work to show that a colony that has deteriorated according to Sanford's claim does not suffer, it recovers.
So John did not do his homework and the only people who believe him are other idiots who could not do their homework in high school. I guess it makes a sort of sense.
Listening to an evolutionist speak of "peer review" is laughable. Since you're so interested in truth, let's start by an objective evaluation of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings that have been published in biology textbooks for over a century.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117938 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh really? Show me the "evidence" of abiogenesis. Show me the "evidence" that hemoglobin evolved through gradualism. Show me the "evidence" that man evolved from a worm. You have raw conjectures... Nothing more. Show me the "evidence" that simple can evolve into complex through random mutations. Tell me how evolution created echolocation in whales and migratory instincts in salmon. I' m asking for science, not stories.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117939 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it all wrong.
Then let's here your version of the creatard's work.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117940 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, when it comes to Sanford and the scientific community, a good laugh was had by all.
. Define "scientific community". It's composed of more than liberal academicians who blindly regurgitate what their mentors fed to them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117941 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Listening to an evolutionist speak of "peer review" is laughable. Since you're so interested in truth, let's start by an objective evaluation of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings that have been published in biology textbooks for over a century.
Nope, creationists could easily demonstrate if peer review was unfair. I have told you how easy it that would be in the past.

And not Haeckle again. Please, you his drawings were not fraudulent. You don't even know what he did wrong.

When you can tell us what was wrong with Haeckle's work then we might not laugh at you quite so much.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117942 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true, however, you want to talk science, just like myself, HTS, Russell and others that just aren't speaking, because the Evo morons don't want intelligent science spoken here. All they want is one sided nonsense.
I might suggest that you, myself, Russell and HTS simply read what they claim and then we assess what they say between ourselves, leaving them out of the conversation all together. That way, other people that want to discuss both sides will see they don't have to fight, just because they think differently. We know they will be running off whether we speak to them or not.
The Evo crowd will be left to their own devices.
Just a suggestion to you, HTS and Russell.
I like it

...its INNOVATIVE...

Quite unlike animalutionism...

Which I detest

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117943 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Define "scientific community". It's composed of more than liberal academicians who blindly regurgitate what their mentors fed to them.
Get a clue, you made an accusation that you know is not true, now you are trying to save face. Try harder.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117944 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, creationists could easily demonstrate if peer review was unfair. I have told you how easy it that would be in the past.
And not Haeckle again. Please, you his drawings were not fraudulent. You don't even know what he did wrong.
When you can tell us what was wrong with Haeckle's work then we might not laugh at you quite so much.
. Have you ever seen a three week human embryo? I have... Many times. They look NOTHING like Haeckle's drawings. I'm demonstrating that no legitimate peer review exists in the world of NDT. You're defending Haeckle's drawings even now, after they have been widely criticized by embryologists who are not DarwinBots.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117945 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Rusty you gigantic douche.
The aim of the paper that Chimney quoted was not to prove evolution. That has already been done. The aim of it was to disprove Sanford's nonsense. According to Sanford the population should not have recovered, it did. There is no genetic entropy.
The population only recovered ...
Because....

It never entirely lost its wild type fitness...

Do you read at all or just skip from post to post saying...

You're wrong...
You're wrong...
You're Oh, so very wrong.....

?
?
?

When the variability within the population was eliminated by the selection of a mutant clone....

NO REVERSAL to ancestral fitness occurred ...

Sanford stands....

If that's all you have.....
HTS

Williston, ND

#117946 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.
Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.
The Evo clique is totally one sided. That's the best way to dumb down your children.
Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Atheism lies at the heart of Darwinism, and there is one common denominator among all atheists...consummate arrogance founded on rebellion against a higher authority. They cannot imagine an intelligence greater than their own, so they play God themselves by mocking creation and making conjectures as to how intelligent creation should have been conducted. Arrogance leads to self deception. Since they reject God, they deify natural selection and pure chemistry as possessing properties of creating life. In short, they create a facade of science to hide behind their religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117947 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The population only recovered ...
Because....
It never entirely lost its wild type fitness...
Do you read at all or just skip from post to post saying...
You're wrong...
You're wrong...
You're Oh, so very wrong.....
?
?
?
When the variability within the population was eliminated by the selection of a mutant clone....
NO REVERSAL to ancestral fitness occurred ...
Sanford stands....
If that's all you have.....
Yes, they recovered because genetic entropy is bullshit. I am glad we agree. Remember they were testing Sanford's claims, not the already proven concept of evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117948 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Have you ever seen a three week human embryo? I have... Many times. They look NOTHING like Haeckle's drawings. I'm demonstrating that no legitimate peer review exists in the world of NDT. You're defending Haeckle's drawings even now, after they have been widely criticized by embryologists who are not DarwinBots.
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.

Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.

Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckle did wrong after your next failure.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117949 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what I read you saying is:
1. You admit you have not been studying evolution as long as I have.
Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
--2 Timothy 3:7
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
2. You have your mind (such as it is) made us and don't want to be confused with the scientific facts (religious fundamentalism has that effect on people).
Your 'religious'stance is faulty
An untenable position

I have posted a comment about it...
but it seems my post has gone missing

#117728

Its not there

Well, I'll just re-post it later
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
3. You are still conflating evolution with abiogenesis which is not possible if you had REALLY read as much as you say.
Why are evolutionists desperate to avoid the REAL issues of origins?

Just happy to play in the 'safe' little playground with your perceived safety nets?

Why not step into the arena where the real blood letting occurs?

Your creed that evolution happened is in defiance of ALL natural laws
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Perhaps I should have lead with this, your ignorance of evolution in particular and science in general makes your assertions moot. The evidence of your ignorance fills your posts. They are filled with assertions you cannot support. You quotemine stuff OR pick the quotemines off creationist ready quotemined.
I could CLAIM to be a brain surgeon, but if I mislabel the parts of the brain then you would be right to call me a liar. Based on a comparable level of errors about evolution I have concluded you are a liar about the extent to which you have studied it.
That is all.
May I politely....taking a leaf out of Mugwumps' book....suggest that you read:

http://creation.com/Did-god-create-over-billi...

You will have to face the indefensible nature of your stance
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117950 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they recovered because genetic entropy is bullshit. I am glad we agree. Remember they were testing Sanford's claims, not the already proven concept of evolution.
A beaut DOUBLE win...
Serendipitous....

I know you well, Marshmallow Terminator ...

So your usual responses, as featured, here just won't work with me....

You ARE wrong....

You have STILL not provided a single rebuttal to my HLA-DRB 1 exon 2 vs intron 1-4 posts

Don't think I have not noticed...

You think you have a 'herd' immunity ducking and weaving about within the fray....

But I KNOW.....!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117951 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly rabbit, that gene may be dormant, because our ancestors started eating many things with vitamin C.
Do you ever use your brain?
Probably correct. Eating fruits and such allowed those with the defective gene to reproduce in large numbers. Otherwise, only those who did NOT have the defective gene would have survived.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117952 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..
Its antibiotic resistance all over again...
Like the rapid pesticide resistance in the same creature de-bunked ages ago
No. I completely refuted your silliness. And now all you can say is "nice try" because you cannot answer me. Instead you bring up antibiotic resistance! That is too funny...as its another great example of adaptive evolution fueled by random mutation and selection.

And as a side note, the creationist claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are otherwise weakened is also debunked. Sometimes the AB resistant bacteria are stronger than their "wild" counterparts...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117953 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.
Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.
Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckel did wrong after your next failure.
And, of course, in the twisted world of "all change is evolution", even Haeckel's own admission of fraud was a win of some sort?

Don't worry HTS...

SubDud will never back off

Don't forget

He cares not one whit whether he writes anything of substance or not

He wishes to cement his title of Champ of the Chumps...

And best wishes to him

But HTS

Don't expect him to back away from defending Haeckel

That's his favourite...

SubDud ain't going to watch that boat sink and him stand by doing NUTHIN'

Why....
HTS...

You'll be attacking his other favourite next..
The Monera Fallacy

Boy, then we'll see sparks fly!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117954 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
A beaut DOUBLE win...
Serendipitous....
I know you well, Marshmallow Terminator ...
So your usual responses, as featured, here just won't work with me....
You ARE wrong....
You have STILL not provided a single rebuttal to my HLA-DRB 1 exon 2 vs intron 1-4 posts
Don't think I have not noticed...
You think you have a 'herd' immunity ducking and weaving about within the fray....
But I KNOW.....!
I never saw it or it was so idiotically stupid that I skipped over it.

Do you care to post it again.

Or perhaps I did debunk it but you were too thick to notice.

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) 5 min DanFromSmithville 154,583
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 54 min kenedy njoroge 884
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 17,900
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web