Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180366 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119259 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm interested in science, not vain appeals to authority or references to your religious beliefs.
Evolution is fully supported by evidence, the only challenge to it is from Christiots like yourself who appeal to the authority of 2000 yo goat herder fables.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119260 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
A swing and a miss from the Evo moron.
Gosh, your childish stupidity isn't getting any better. Keep working on it moron.
Talking your childish language is tedious and goes nowhere, but hey, it seems to be all you have.
I believe the question was, can you offer any reason why probability refutes evolution.

See - this just backs up my hypothesis - you are a windup merchant
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119261 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is fully supported by evidence, the only challenge to it is from Christiots like yourself who appeal to the authority of 2000 yo goat herder fables.
Evolution has been repeatedly debunked through scientific proofs. It is, for starters, mathematically impossible. The need for you to always bring up religion in an attitutude of mockery attests to the shallowness of your thinking.
One way or another

United States

#119262 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You could not pick "science" out of a police line-up if you had the mug shot in your hand.
Oh gosh, childish stupidity from an Evo moron, whatever will we do.
One way or another

United States

#119263 Feb 23, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the question was, can you offer any reason why probability refutes evolution.
See - this just backs up my hypothesis - you are a windup merchant
He said," odds proof". Show us the definition of odds proof.

Of course seeing as you and he are both morons and there is no such thing as odds proof, stupidity is all you have.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119264 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution has been repeatedly debunked through scientific proofs. It is, for starters, mathematically impossible. The need for you to always bring up religion in an attitutude of mockery attests to the shallowness of your thinking.
You have demonstrated your mastery of mathematics is a joke as is your scientific acumen. Evolution is supported by the majority of the available evidence, "Magic Sky Daddy did it with pixie dust" is supported by none of the available evidence. You've got nothing.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119265 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You have demonstrated your mastery of mathematics is a joke as is your scientific acumen. Evolution is supported by the majority of the available evidence, "Magic Sky Daddy did it with pixie dust" is supported by none of the available evidence. You've got nothing.
I have been patiently waiting for months for someone to demonstrate through mathematical probability that evolution is possible. All I get is "evolutiondidit with magic" and all who disagree are religious fanatics who hate science.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119266 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
He said," odds proof". Show us the definition of odds proof.
Of course seeing as you and he are both morons and there is no such thing as odds proof, stupidity is all you have.
Odds = probability

Probability was mentioned in SZs post which said there is no probility argument that is a barrier to evolution

You said he was wrong

It's up to you to prove it Edgar

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119267 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
iIn the deluded world of atheism, there are no absolutes... No love, no beauty, no good or evil, no purpose...nothing
None of those is absolute. They're not even objective. What's wrong with you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119268 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
A swing and a miss from the Evo moron.
Gosh, your childish stupidity isn't getting any better. Keep working on it moron.
Talking your childish language is tedious and goes nowhere, but hey, it seems to be all you have.
So the uber-moron does not have a probability argument. Of course Jimbo would have been wrong no matter what.
One way or another

United States

#119269 Feb 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see you posit anything scientific.
That's because you're an idiot.

Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reversed the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistantt bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#119270 Feb 23, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those is absolute. They're not even objective. What's wrong with you?
Anyone who thinks that a random shuffle of a deck of cards is fundamentally no different than an ordered sequence is denying fundamental axioms of physics.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119271 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have been patiently waiting for months for someone to demonstrate through mathematical probability that evolution is possible. All I get is "evolutiondidit with magic" and all who disagree are religious fanatics who hate science.
It doesn't need to be established through mathematical probability, especially not with your faulty assumption basis.

Microevolution has been established as a fact in our lifetime. Macroevolution is merely an extension of the same effect over a longer period of time, they are the same thing. Macroevolution is as factual as microevolution. Evolution is an established fact. Deal with it!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119272 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Evolution has been repeatedly debunked through scientific proofs. It is, for starters, mathematically impossible. The need for you to always bring up religion in an attitutude of mockery attests to the shallowness of your thinking.
You have gone straight for How's That for Stupid mode today.

No, no one ever has raised a successful probability argument against evolution. I pointed out the fatal flaw in that idiotic one that you mentioned earlier today.

You should not lie HTS, if you are a Christian it is a breaking of the 9th Commandment.
One way or another

United States

#119273 Feb 23, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Odds = probability
Probability was mentioned in SZs post which said there is no probility argument that is a barrier to evolution
You said he was wrong
It's up to you to prove it Edgar
Your deceit is all you have. Run along child.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119274 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have been patiently waiting for months for someone to demonstrate through mathematical probability that evolution is possible. All I get is "evolutiondidit with magic" and all who disagree are religious fanatics who hate science.
No, you have repeatedly ignored the evidence. That is why I will not give you any evidence until you take the short bit of time to learn what evidence is. You keep yourself ignorant as a defense. That really does not work in a debate.

By the way since we have observed evolution in the laboratory, in the field in several different ways and in the fossil record the odds of evolution occurring are by definition 1.

So let's hear your fatally flawed probability arguments.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119275 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you're an idiot.
Lenski's antibiotic claim.
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reversed the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistantt bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.
Typical Poe behaviour - when asked a direct question - dodge like hell - and respond to an earlier post than the question that was asked to divert the thread.

So back to the question you were asked ...... What is YOUR argument that suggests probability refutes evolution ?

Start dodging Edgar
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119276 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your deceit is all you have. Run along child.
Dodge

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119277 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
Anyone who thinks that a random shuffle of a deck of cards is fundamentally no different than an ordered sequence is denying fundamental axioms of physics.
Lacking knowledge of a predetermined result, how would an ordered sequence differ from a random sequence? They are both sequences.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119279 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't need to be established through mathematical probability, especially not with your faulty assumption basis.
Microevolution has been established as a fact in our lifetime. Macroevolution is merely an extension of the same effect over a longer period of time, they are the same thing. Macroevolution is as factual as microevolution. Evolution is an established fact. Deal with it!
The micro- to Macro- extrapolation is absurd, given the fact that the former is the result of selection or pre-existing genes, and the latter creation of novel genes through mutation.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 49 min dollarsbill 4,755
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 53 min dollarsbill 85,406
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Samuel Patre 165,330
What's your religion? 12 hr Paul Porter1 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... 16 hr was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 hr Dogen 33,127
God hates Tennessee Sun Rev Jackson 2
More from around the web