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 5,774)

Showing posts 115,461 - 115,480 of171,275
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118546
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. ANY conclusion that claims to understand the origin of life is not supported by science. And your belief in magic poofing is religion. The ToE does not address the origin of life, but it does address the evolution of life.
Abiogenesis is critical to Darwinism, and hiding your head in the sand doesn't erase the problem. Magic poofing of life from non-life is all that can be hypothesized at this point.
If ToE does not address the origin of life, then tell me precisely at what point life begins. Was the precursor to single cell life "non-life". At what point does the ToE arbitrarily stop looking for answers, and why? Can you logically, in your own words, explain to me WHY abiogenesis is not part of ToE?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118547
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Abiogenesis is critical to Darwinism,....
No, abiogenesis is critical to all notions of how life originated, even yours.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118548
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS. If you think that man's genome has been measurably improving over 5300 years... prove it. Lyme disease, lactose intolerance, and cardiovascular disease exist today as well as in the past. You have proven nothing.
LYING again, I see. I never once said that the human genome is "measurably improving". What I said was that you were LYING about it degrading.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118549
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
IN fact every point you make, I have already refuted. Simply repeating your errors wont help.
But regarding the first paragraph. NO. You actually have it arse-backwards, even according to Sanford. Natural selection will work more strongly when the population IS constrained by competition for resources, that is the whole Malthusian point. That is when the fittest will be the few that survive.
Sanford agrees that natural selection will slow the degradation compared to no selection. The only difference is that he thinks the bast case scenario is a slowed decline rather than an improvement.
IN this experiment we see improvement. You can cry that they attribute it to beneficial mutation, but the obvious fact is they do that because there is no other possible source of fitness improvement in the circumstances.
You haven't refuted anything. Now let's focus on your statement:

"You can cry that they attribute it to beneficial mutation, but the obvious fact is they do that because there is no other possible source of fitness improvement in the circumstances."

NO OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCE???? Chimney, whatever happened to "I don't know"? You refuse to give an opinion on things like the origin of the universe but with the reason for improved fitness, it must be "beneficial mutations"? Even when you have NO evidence? This is ridiculous.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118550
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science.
You would certainly know all about that, wouldn't you:

The first man was magically conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was magically conjured up out of a rib ripped out of the first man.

A talking snake.

Magic fruit that makes an eater really smart or immortal.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and warlocks.

Angels and demons.

Etc., etc., etc..
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118551
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't refuted anything.
Oh, please. Your bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE was debunked 150+ years ago. That's why pretty much everyone in the world laughs at you bronze age fairy tale cultists.

Heck, even most of your fellow Christians think you guys are insane.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118552
Feb 21, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...
You still have not suggested any explanation for the absence of erosion in this picture:
http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b...
Yes, that is Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale
The interface between the two layers represents MILLIONS OF YEARS ....40 million...
Where's the erosion between them?
Erosion occurs when the layer is at the surface. When other layeres accumulate on top of it, compression increases and erosion stops. You should not expect the entire layer to be eroded, because that would be something different than erosion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118553
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't adress the problem. Your revised infinite monkey theorum is equally impossible. Any selective process that could week out incorrect keystrokes would have to have knowledge of the English language and would have to have an end goal. In other words, the selection process would require intelligence.
That was assumed when an end goal was set.

You are trying to bend this too much, that is why if you put unreasonable requests, such as the works of one single person desired, then you are demanding that selection be set up for that one special person.

Even with the Shakespeare selector that is a much closer analogy to evolution than a test run without any selector.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118554
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evo-babbling is not science. Sickle cell anemia is an irrelevant debunked example.
Doubly wrong.

You can't get much more wrong than this. How was the sickle cell gene ever debunked as being a "bad gene"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118555
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, abiogenesis is critical to all notions of how life originated, even yours.
Then why do you accept something [abiogenesis] that has no scientific validity.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118556
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
You would certainly know all about that, wouldn't you:
The first man was magically conjured up out of a pile of dirt.
The first woman was magically conjured up out of a rib ripped out of the first man.
A talking snake.
Magic fruit that makes an eater really smart or immortal.
Giants and unicorns.
Satyrs and cockatrices.
Witches and warlocks.
Angels and demons.
Etc., etc., etc..
You only reveal your base ignorance when you vainly attempt to validate evolution by ridiculing a religion.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118557
Feb 21, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked first
Where is the erosion in 40 million years?
Why do you think it should continue to erode once it is compressed by other layers?
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118558
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You only reveal your base ignorance when you vainly attempt to validate evolution by ridiculing a religion.
Science does not care about your god or any of the other thousands of gods concocted my man.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118559
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubly wrong.
You can't get much more wrong than this. How was the sickle cell gene ever debunked as being a "bad gene"?
It is a bad gene... that's my point. The appearance and perpetuation of sickle cell trait is irrelevant to gradualistic evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118560
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Science does not care about your god or any of the other thousands of gods concocted my man.
Science is likewise not concerned about stories of matter self organizing into life. If you have some science to offer, then let's hear it. Otherwise, spare us the strawman arguments.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118561
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That was assumed when an end goal was set.
You are trying to bend this too much, that is why if you put unreasonable requests, such as the works of one single person desired, then you are demanding that selection be set up for that one special person.
Even with the Shakespeare selector that is a much closer analogy to evolution than a test run without any selector.
A monkey could not type a single meaningful sentence on any subject in any language without prior knowledge of that subject and language.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118562
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, please. Your bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE was debunked 150+ years ago. That's why pretty much everyone in the world laughs at you bronze age fairy tale cultists.
Heck, even most of your fellow Christians think you guys are insane.
Spare us the strawman arguments. Your hangups about religion are irrelevant to science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118563
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Simply stating your opinion doesn't falsify what Sanford claims. Prove that natural selection can rid the human genome of 100+ mutations per generation. Logically demonstrates how natural selection can distinguish a few neutral mutations out of six billion nucleotides.
Chimney1 demonstrated more than once how Sanford was debunked.

And I see that you still don't understand science or genetics.

We don't need to prove that those mutations disappear. In fact hey don't. Bad mutations quickly die out. He did show that. The vast majority of mutations are benign, that has been shown. We don't see people walking around with 100 obvious mutations from their parents. Most of those mutations occurred in "junk DNA" or more properly non-coding DNA.

All we have to show is that bad mutations are not passed on, and he showed exactly that.

If you don't understand evolution, or biology, you cannot argue against it.

Sanford never made his case in the first place. I know you are religious so without any evidence at all, except for the writing of one weirdo would you believe in a Magic Teapot on the far side of the Moon? Of course not, so why should science believe the writing of one weirdo who did not provide any evidence that supports his claim? In fact all evidence out there says that his claims are wrong.

So Sanford never made his case other than to make a simple computer program that followed his rules, not nature's rules. He provided no evidence from the real world that showed his idea to be correct in fact all evidence from the real world debunked his hypothesis.

It is not up to us to demonstrate that all bad mutations die out, and they don't by the way, they don't build up as Sanford claimed. It is up to you to provide evidence that supports Sanford. Otherwise the little bit of work that has been done to debunk him stands.

A little bit of evidence beats no evidence. You have not evidence.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118564
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Notice that the atheists on this forum incessantly bring up religion... this is because their entire foundation of evidence rests on attempted disproof of intelligent design. They can't prove evolution, because as a scientific theory it is undefensible.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118565
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Science is likewise not concerned about stories of matter self organizing into life.
There's a fair number of scientists who will be quite surprised to hear this.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 115,461 - 115,480 of171,275
|
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.

17 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
are white people inbred albinos (Dec '09) 9 min OCA 2 21
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 35 min Dogen 133,190
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 44 min Chimney1 1,335
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 53 min ChristineM 112,059
Intelligent Design - Deist style (Dec '09) 15 hr Kong_ 54
Science News (Sep '13) Fri positronium 2,822
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) Jul 10 DanFromSmithville 358
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••