Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119028 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So who asked nature? To make a selection, someone or some animal has to make some kind of request.
Let's not forget, boys and girls, that this is the same idiot that once said that if you can't find a question on the internet, it's never been asked.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119029 Feb 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not forget, boys and girls, that this is the same idiot that once said that if you can't find a question on the internet, it's never been asked.
The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119030 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar. You don't even understand how science works and you are terrified you must defend you silly Fall/Redemption theology against REALITY as demonstrated by science.
Show me some actual science that gives me a reason to believe that man evolved from a microbe. I've heard all the arguments on this forum, and they amount to philosophical opinions only.
One way or another

United States

#119031 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Polar bears who cannot adapt to the rapidly warming arctic climate, the melting ice, and thus their inability to trap and eat whales and other fish at ice holes will quickly die off, often without reproducing, and thus the species as a whole is likely to decline quickly and eventually cease to exist.
A 4TH GRADER can understand this process.
No one DELIBERATELY selected them for extinction. That isn't how it works.
Look up the definition of selection moron. There is no such thing as natural selection anywhere on earth moron.

Look up the definitions. Oh, you were too stupid to do that before you opened your big fat mouth and now that you have made an a-s-s out of yourself, you, like all the other lazy morons here cry and call other people names.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119032 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not "predict" nested hierarchies.
Of course it does. What a stupid thing to say. It seems rather obvious to anyone of moderate intelligence that if species descend form one another, their fossils and their DNA results will reside in nested hierarchies.

This is an obvious result of common descent.

Idiot Jesus Freaks can only claim, "Oh, yeah, well JESUS could be using nested hierarchies too! So there!" No explanation for it scientifically, which is why Intelligent Design is such mendacious bullshit.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
And by the way, do you actually think ToE "predicts" what is seen in the fossil record? Over 100 million fossils identified and catalogued, spanning a supposed geologic time period of 530 million years, and the DarwinBots can come up with maybe two possible examples? Where are the millions of transitional species that are missing?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitio...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origi...

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Stop repeating ignorant Jesus Freak LIES.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119033 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
See my earlier post.
You don't know Gee or his work, you haven't read his book, and you have absolutely NO IDEA what he is really saying.
You just swooped on to a "Christian" website and copy this because you found it tickled your itchy ears for more lies about science.
That's the essence of craven, totally dishonest fundamentalist Christian QUOTE-MINING.
First, I don't get my information from "Christian websites"

Second, the "quote mining" card that you DarwinBots like to pull out whenever you get in a bind is getting old. How about for once address what was said? If it's out of context in some way, how about explaining yourself.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119034 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
THis is rich coming from YOU, Jesus Freak!
One way or another

United States

#119035 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
Amen to that, all of them play that stupid game. They have nothing else.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#119036 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
You mean Ryan, of course.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119037 Feb 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
And Collins's view on YEC ?
"But it is not science that suffers most here. Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than Creationism, is it any wonder that many of these young people turn away from faith, concluding that they simply cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world?"
Language of god - Francis Collins - 2006
Chapter 8
On evolution ?
"No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology"
Chapter 4
Well waddya know Collins dismisses YEC as harmful and supports ToE
Thanks HTS - reminded me to dig out my copy of the langauge of god
Another idiotic distraction. Collins said that the junk DNA paradigm was essentially wrong. What does his religion have to do with anything? As I've repeatedly stated and you DarwinBots consistently verified... ToE cannot be defended without bringing up religion. I thought you guys were interested in science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119038 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ... it is obvious that you believe what you want to believe. You want to be related to apes. You want the human genome to be full of junk. Your are selectively filtering data....and what makes you so confident that in five years from now geneticists will be sayiing that 100% of the human genome is functional? What proof do you have that it isn't? You have nothing.
You have this claim one hundred percent wrong.

Once again, early on in the ENCODE project they made startling claims. That is not the first time this has happened with scientific studies. Early on the most important thing a researcher can do is to find some sort of evidence that will keep the money flowing in. So sometimes outrageous claims are made. Now ENCODE themselves have toned down their claims.

All of your claims are from very early in the research when they had hopes of finding a highly active genome. Creatards like you glommed onto this and held on for dear life. Now that the work has progressed they found that they grossly overestimated how much of the genome was active. My articles are more recent. They analyze the actual findings, the ones you use were before the project was done when they hoped to find that much activity.

So once again, your article was based on hope, mine were based upon the actual work. Look at the dates of your article and my articles.

You are the one who is using prejudice in choosing what to believe.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119039 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So who asked nature? To make a selection, someone or some animal has to make some kind of request.
se·lec·tion
/s&#601;&#712;lekSH &#601;n/
Noun
The action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
A number of carefully chosen things.
Synonyms
choice - pick - option - election - assortment - picking
Natural selection

Definition

noun

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

Supplement

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natu...

<<end cut/paste>>

(IMHO, the last sentance is a bit out of line. Natural selection is **A** process that **CONTRIBUTES** to the evolution of an organism.)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119040 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
THis is rich coming from YOU, Jesus Freak!
Gilette, look in the mirror. What you see is the face of a religious bigot, a spineless atheist pretending to be interested in science. I present intelligent dialogue, and all you can do is hurl stupid insults.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119041 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
How can you make that claim when you continually refuse to undertake the simple task of learning what is and is not scientific evidence?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119042 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it does. What a stupid thing to say. It seems rather obvious to anyone of moderate intelligence that if species descend form one another, their fossils and their DNA results will reside in nested hierarchies.
This is an obvious result of common descent.
Idiot Jesus Freaks can only claim, "Oh, yeah, well JESUS could be using nested hierarchies too! So there!" No explanation for it scientifically, which is why Intelligent Design is such mendacious bullshit.
<quoted text>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitio...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.h...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origi...
There are plenty of transitional fossils. Stop repeating ignorant Jesus Freak LIES.
I see, you can't defend anything. All you can do is robotically copy and paste links, followed by more bigoted insults.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#119043 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The only way a DarwinBot can engage in a debate is to constantly dodge questions and create stupid distractions.
LMAO!!! What a hoot coming from a fundie liar for Jeebus.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119044 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahaha, the moron above insinuates the bears selected death.
Hahahaha, the moron above doesn't understand that survival does the selecting.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119045 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, the bears selected ---lack of death. Mind telling us how they did that. Did they ask the evolutionary fairy?
Yes! Survival is the evolutionary fairy.

Well, that's the closest you will come to understanding it anyway.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#119046 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Gilette, look in the mirror. What you see is the face of a religious bigot, a spineless atheist pretending to be interested in science. I present intelligent dialogue, and all you can do is hurl stupid insults.
You present nothing but refuted, debunked creationist B.S. and pathetic childish insults.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119047 Feb 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection

Definition

noun

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

Supplement

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natu...

<<end cut/paste>>

(IMHO, the last sentance is a bit out of line. Natural selection is **A** process that **CONTRIBUTES** to the evolution of an organism.)
...in addition -- before you say it -- the INVERSE of the above is also true, in that Natural Selection is ALSO described by those organisms (like Polar Bears) who FAIL to adapt to the changing environment are LESS likely to pass on their genes to subsequent generations.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min renee 35,565
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 min Patrick 15,024
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Don Barros Serrano 199,538
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Don Barros Serrano 151,372
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 12 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 13 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 14 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web