Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118660 Feb 21, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you proven there are no leprechauns yet?
Nope, he hasn't. So therefore his god doesn't exist, he's just avoiding the question because he knows his god is made up.
One way or another

United States

#118661 Feb 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
At lease I know what the word means, dipshit. You've been misusing it the whole time.
And if there's anyone crying for attention here, it's your whiny little ass.
Yea, that's why I write new science that no one here can dispute, however, I know you need attention, so, I'll give you some. Lol, dispute this child of the American school system.

Oops I'm sorry, is that over your 3rd grade education?

Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits, where one object can hit another object and knock it out of orbit. However, everything in lower orbit will eventually fall back to earth., according to science. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its own gravity well, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118662 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If that's the depth of your evidence, you have nothing.
Really? You cannot understand even that basic logic?

Abiogenesis only means life from nonlife if you go by etymology. That is what Genesis describes. You believe in an abiogenesis powered by magic, you know "God did it", and we believe in an abiogenesis powered by natural laws. In either case an abiogenesis event happened.

Why can't you understand this extremely easy concept?
One way or another

United States

#118663 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the only research that's providing results, like the vaccines you use to enjoy a longer and healthier life. Also, denying evolution is also denying christian science, since it was a christian who actually made the original observation, Darwin just figured out one of the mechanisms.
Hahahaha, too stupid to understand the difference between evolutions BS and real science.

The American school system breeds morons that can actually cut and paste. That must be what is ment by evolution. Lol
One way or another

United States

#118664 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why couldn't older fossils be near the surface?
Do try to read and understand his claim. Ha, the American school system at work.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118665 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try to read and understand his claim. Ha, the American school system at work.
No, I asked you why they couldn't because you inferred that older fossils, ie. dinosaur fossils, could not be near the surface. So the question is directed at you, explain why they could not be near the surface.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118666 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, the primary evidences presented in defense of evolution are ultimately attempted disproofs of God.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundaMENTALshit xristian creotards" LIE so much.

Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

Say "hi" to ha'Satan for us when you get to Hell.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118667 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahaha, too stupid to understand the difference between evolutions BS and real science.
The American school system breeds morons that can actually cut and paste. That must be what is ment by evolution. Lol
You make assertions then never account for them, ever. You don't offer anything to support them, not even the logic behind it. So I ask you, what is the difference? In full detail, why is evolutionary science not valid?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118668 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If neutral mutations don't add up to any deleterious effect over many generations, what makes you believe that they can add up to anything positive as required by evolution? I can show you that tens of thousands of generations of bacteria add up to no improvement in DNA, and yet you insist that man evolved from an ape in a similar number of generations.
What sort of evolutionary pressures did you have those bacteria under? If you had none the lack of change does not mean anything.

I can show you bacteria under evolutionary pressure that did evolve. There are several experiments that show this, we can also show it in the field. What do you think those new versions of flu virus that come through every year are? Yes, viruses evolve too.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#118669 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, the primary evidences presented in defense of evolution are ultimately attempted disproofs of God.
Only in the small pea sized brains of anti-science, anti-intellectuals as you and your ilk.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118670 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww poor baby, why don't you go tell you're mommy you pooped in your panties. I'm sure she will give you se attention.
Thanks for again displaying the sophistication of your intellect for the entire world to see.

It must be really hard going through life being you.
One way or another

United States

#118671 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You cannot understand even that basic logic?
Abiogenesis only means life from nonlife if you go by etymology. That is what Genesis describes. You believe in an abiogenesis powered by magic, you know "God did it", and we believe in an abiogenesis powered by natural laws. In either case an abiogenesis event happened.
Why can't you understand this extremely easy concept?
Hahahaha, your deceit is showing from one page to the next. Abiogenesis!!!

Of course who can blame you, you are still a child of the American school system, determined to show the entire world, what deceitful, childishness is taught in the American school system.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#118672 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try to read and understand his claim. Ha, the American school system at work.
Never heard of tectonic plate shifts, glacial tilling and erosion?

HA! Self conducted home schooling at work.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118673 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do try to read and understand his claim. Ha, the American school system at work.
So, do tell, what "school" did you go to? My guess, the one in your mommies basement.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#118674 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, that's why I write new science that no one here can dispute,

<snipped as has already been refuted, but Jimbo won't defend his new thoughts>
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>

The colour green is more intelligent than the colour red.

This is new thinking

Do you agree, given my above statement , that this is a worthy thing to say?

If not can you present any arguments against my new thinking?
I take it as you have thus far failed to refute my new science - that it is correct?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#118675 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand evolution alright
Just don’t believe it
I like evidenced based science generally
Not frank emotionalism capsuled in pseudoscience
<quoted text>
Mutation for sickle cell anaemia is anti-evolution
ALL mutationally related diseases are anti-evolution
Destruction of existing genes is anti-evolution
Since evolution demands the creation of innovation….over millions of years….by slow gradual processes
You have said so yourself
AND provided not a shred of evidence for your blind assertions
FURTHERMORE---> at risk of being long winded…...which I never really am…....
<quoted text>
“Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions.
Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.”
And you may eyeball the Tables referred to here:
And yet a base-by-base comparison (ie, taking the genome as a whole into account) puts chimps around 98% similar to humans. Again, you're misrepresenting different measuring methods for different situations, much like YEC's do with various scientific dating techniques. That is why you fail. That and repeating fallacious arguments refuted many months ago.

Besides, you openly admitted you don't care about science and are only interested in religious apologetics. You have no case.
One way or another

United States

#118676 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, he hasn't. So therefore his god doesn't exist, he's just avoiding the question because he knows his god is made up.
No, actually you and your childish buddies are too stupid to discuss science in an adult manner, with manners and respect, but since y'all are a product of the American school system, we'll pity your ignorance and childishness.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#118677 Feb 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Remind us what's intelligently designed about the laryngeal nerve.
So you can ignore my slam dunk response?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118678 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahaha, your deceit is showing from one page to the next. Abiogenesis!!!
Of course who can blame you, you are still a child of the American school system, determined to show the entire world, what deceitful, childishness is taught in the American school system.
You make assertions then never account for them, ever. You don't offer anything to support them, not even the logic behind it. So I ask you, what is the difference? In full detail, why is evolutionary science not valid?
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118679 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your incessant habit of bilittling the credentials of others only underscores to everyone the depth of your own insecurity.
This IGNORES, of course, the credentials of the VAST majority of people who actually do scientific research and discover empirical evidence in biology, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, etc. who fully suport the validity of the ToE.

Why do you IGNORE the fact that we have WAY MORE credentialed people than you do? VASTLY more. OVERWHELMINGLY more.

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 2 min No Surprise 307
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Subduction Zone 28,602
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 39 min Aura Mytha 67,106
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 45 min pshun2404 29
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 3,523
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr Subduction Zone 924
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 4 hr Gorogro1 1,765
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 160,942
More from around the web