Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119181 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution needs MORE mountains of evidence
Because what you have is just evidence of change

Evolution = change over time.

No more evidence needed.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That is patent nonsense
Who would deny that electricity exists?

That is my point. Who would deny that evolution happens? I just substituted one scientific fact for another (evolution for electricity).

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Your claims are akin to saying that because electricity exists, buildings spontaneously develop wiring and cabling, along with switches and power outlets

No your analogy is not good. Electricity existed for billions of years before those things came into being on this planet. Likewise, evolution existed for billions of years and eventually a lifeform came along that was able to utilize electricity with wiring, cabling,.... But that is not really the point.

It is interesting to note that humans have been USING evolution for longer than they have been using electricity (except as a source for fire). Selective breeding uses the mechanism of evolution to alter existing animal with the characteristics the breeder desires.

So evolution has been a fact longer than electricity.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119182 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor Rusty, he has delusions of adequacy again. It seems he likes to pull a Maz now and then too. Like Maz he will find an article with keywords that are hopeful to him and then he posts it as if he has accomplished something.
Rusty, you have shown time after time that you don't understand the few noncreatard articles that you link.
No of course I don't understand plain English
Subduction Zone wrote:
Worse yet you have admitted to denying almost all science. Even science as recent as Newton's mechanics go against your idiotic creatard beliefs.
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
Subduction Zone wrote:
All you have been able to do is to try to insult people by copying what is said about you.
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
Subduction Zone wrote:
Unfortunately since others do not make the same grade school mistakes that you do those insults do not apply.
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
Subduction Zone wrote:
ignorance is a mighty fortress for Rusty.
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119183 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Fancy that
Just like the Bible says
Every organism also replicates its unique genome into a copy of its own unique genome
...with the exception of the few errors that may slip through....vindicated by the occurrence of the Fall

Since these errors have been occurring for over 3.5 billion years, when exactly did "the fall" (sic - not actually a biblical term) occur?

You have a problem.

Second, the similarity of genomes is directly related to the length of time the two organisms have been separated by evolutionary history. Not one counterexample has been found.

The EXACT same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record is found in:
- DNA
- Morphology
- Ontogeny
- ERV insertion pattern
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Phylogenies
- Cladistics

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> And you claim chemical turned into horrendously intricate cells by eluding every chemical law in creation and zapped themselves into life...

What in the name of Osirus are you talking about? So, in addition to biology you also don't get chemistry. Small wonder.

I go even a step further. I claim that hydrogen atoms turned into horrendously intricate molecules by a process I call nature.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Gould formulated punctuated equilibrium BECAUSE of the massive issues with the fossil record

Actually, Darwin formulated punctuated equilibrium. Gould supplied the name and ran with the concept.

Gradualism was assumed early on due to the principle of parsimony. Observations required that to be rejected. Still, Darwin got it right in the beginning.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119184 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English

We Know. We know.


Note the vapidity of the rest of Russell's post.

[QUOTE who="Russell"]<qu oted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!

Emotionalism without substance. Typical of creationists.

You need to learn evolutionary theology and come to realize that science does not refute religion nor does science ever even attempt to refute religion. That is just a function of your paranoid belief system.

http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119185 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely
And proving evolutionary dogma to be incorrect

In what way is ENCODE not 100% in line with the MSE?

In what way is ENCODE consistent with creationism?

[crickets chirping in February]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119186 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Dogem
You have no evidence

The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.

If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:

Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> You repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what creationists say about theistic evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....

**[Psychological Projection Test]**

Russell, you repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119187 Feb 23, 2013
This guy reminds me of the Dude

Slippery
Snake

Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”

Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”

Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119188 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.
If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:
Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)
<quoted text>
**[Psychological Projection Test]**
Russell, you repeat what you hear and think others are saying....
You link to tediously sloppy sites
You repeat yourself endlessly
You can't even refute what scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
No I think Dogem is a better representation of you

Your evidence falsifies the Bible
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119189 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotionalism without substance. Typical of creationists.
You need to learn evolutionary theology and come to realize that science does not refute religion nor does science ever even attempt to refute religion. That is just a function of your paranoid belief system.
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
I've always said evolution is a religion
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119190 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since these errors have been occurring for over 3.5 billion years, when exactly did "the fall" (sic - not actually a biblical term) occur?
Neither is Biblical...

So there you go...

So you don't believe Genesis?

Neither can you believe a virgin birth

Nor a resurrection

Cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem.
I do not belong to a cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Second, the similarity of genomes is directly related to the length of time the two organisms have been separated by evolutionary history. Not one counterexample has been found.
You knowledge of genetics is bleak

HLA-DRB 1 exons may show what you claim
HLA-DRB 1 introns 1-4 do not

Naturally you have not a clue what I am saying but never mind...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The EXACT same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record is found in:
- DNA
- Morphology
- Ontogeny
- ERV insertion pattern
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Phylogenies
- Cladistics
You mean like this?

http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109/figure...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

What in the name of Osirus are you talking about? So, in addition to biology you also don't get chemistry. Small wonder.
I go even a step further. I claim that hydrogen atoms turned into horrendously intricate molecules by a process I call nature.
You call nature-god
No evidence
Just confidence and heaps of faith
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Darwin formulated punctuated equilibrium. Gould supplied the name and ran with the concept.
Gradualism was assumed early on due to the principle of parsimony. Observations required that to be rejected. Still, Darwin got it right in the beginning.
Yes, we argee
There were and are massive insurmountable issues with the fossil record
One way or another

United States

#119191 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English
<quoted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!
Lmao, how true.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119192 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution = change over time.
No more evidence needed.
<quoted text>
That is my point. Who would deny that evolution happens? I just substituted one scientific fact for another (evolution for electricity).
<quoted text>
No your analogy is not good. Electricity existed for billions of years before those things came into being on this planet. Likewise, evolution existed for billions of years and eventually a lifeform came along that was able to utilize electricity with wiring, cabling,.... But that is not really the point.
It is interesting to note that humans have been USING evolution for longer than they have been using electricity (except as a source for fire). Selective breeding uses the mechanism of evolution to alter existing animal with the characteristics the breeder desires.
So evolution has been a fact longer than electricity.
Not withstanding lightening, of course

You have no idea
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119193 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

**[Psychological Projection Test]**
When all you have is a hammer...
..everything looks like a nail
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119194 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

[crickets chirping in February]
Its called tinnitus

Get it checked
One way or another

United States

#119195 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
This guy reminds me of the Dude
Slippery
Snake
Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”
Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”
Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Amen, just as the gov teaches through the schools and the cliques, created by the schools. Ignorance for the sake of a fully corrupt gov and their proxies.
One way or another

United States

#119197 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No I think Dogem is a better representation of you
Your evidence falsifies the Bible
More like dodger. Someone else have him that name, even though the entire clique copy dodging--101.

Many children have nothing else.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119198 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where has DNA occurred “naturally” in a cell?
It's in this place called the nucleus of the cell.

I see Rusty failed even grade school biology.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119199 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
This guy reminds me of the Dude
Slippery
Snake
Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”
Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”
Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Funny that the first two statements have quotation marks even though they are not quotations. Are you just making things up again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119200 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English
I know, you are an Aussie. That is no excuse if you want to participate in a debate. Other Aussie's have overcome this inability, why can't you?
<quoted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
Wrong again. You made statements in the past that indicated you reject even Newtonian mechanics. When I challenged you on that statement you avoided repeating it.
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
You try to insult people constantly since you have no science to back up your idiocy. Me, I have been extremely patient when you consider the lying fools that I am dealing with.
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!
Unfortunately for you all of these are either very strong evidence for evolution or topics that you do not understand.
For example let's take Haeckel's drawings. I gave you and your other creatard friend a simple challenge. That was to say what was wrong with Haeckel's drawings. All you idiots can do is to claim that they are "fraudulent" without saying that they are how the are fraudulent. That shows that you got this from a creatard site that did not know either.
What a gullible moron you are. You show it in each and every post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119201 Feb 23, 2013
Rusty, instead of spewing a series of lies, why don't you pick what you think is your one best point against evolution and try to defend it.

And if you want to talk about that myth you believe in, including the nonsense of a virgin birth we can discuss that next.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Blitzking 132,761
How would creationists explain... 44 min jbandelin 344
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr MikeF 546
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Brian_G 13,622
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 22 hr nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
More from around the web