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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119289 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A random sequence has no information.
Incorrect, all sequences have information. Whether or not it is useful information is a separate question.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119290 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot mathematically refute probability barriers. All you can do is deny that complexity exists by appeals to a warped worldview.
You have not established mathematically that probability barriers exist all you have done is flap your face and look like a fool.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119291 Feb 23, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text> maybe UC is right

Do you hear yourself?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119292 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, all sequences have information. Whether or not it is useful information is a separate question.
Please logically explain your contradiction of a self evident fact. The making of bold unsubstantiated declarations does not qualify as science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119293 Feb 23, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
The more I read Edgar's posts the more I suspect urban is right - he isn't wilfully stupid - but stupidly willfull.
UC has always maintained that jimbo/Edgar is just a windup and doesn't believe any of his nonsense - maybe UC is right

So you mean someone gets on here, day after day, continuously saying thing they don't believe and that is proof of their good mental health?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119294 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm interested in science, not vain appeals to authority or references to your religious beliefs.

It was more a demonstration that you don't know/understand your own religious beliefs.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119295 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, it is the same process in both cases, the only difference is the number of generations that have passed between the present and the event that isolated the breeding populations.
Patently false statement. Macroevolution requires mutations resulting the creation of new genes. In dog breeding, no new genes were created. You need a refresher in Biology 101.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119296 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You should not speak about a subject that you are 100% clueless about.

In other words HTS should be a mute.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119297 Feb 23, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Lacking knowledge of a predetermined result, how would an ordered sequence differ from a random sequence? They are both sequences.
You validate my point. A belief in ToE requires denial of order and complexity. I suppose that you reject the second law or thermodynamics, founded on mathematical concepts of order and complexity.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119298 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not established mathematically that probability barriers exist all you have done is flap your face and look like a fool.
Anyone who thinks he can advance a scientific theory with disregard for mathematical probability is not a scientist, but a con man.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119299 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Please logically explain your contradiction of a self evident fact. The making of bold unsubstantiated declarations does not qualify as science.
All sequences have a length (duration) and specific sequence.

"ak;hlegoiaoioieupoehqilw fva" is a sequence, it has a length and is comprised of a finite set of symbols, this is information.

"You are an arrogant, ignorant pompous ass!" is a sequence, it also has a length and is comprised of a finite set of symbols, this is also information, but it is also decipherable in English, is accurate and therefore more useful.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119300 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Probability barriers are categorically ignored, not answered. In the end, the old "argument from incredulity" card is conveniently pulled out, and the skeptic of evolution is ridiculed for not having faith in a theory that cannot be defended with scientific explanations.
Why do you continually end your posts with bigoted religious comments? As I've said dozens of times, evolution cannot be defended without references to religion. The more you get nailed to the wall, the more cheap and inflammatory your rhetoric becomes.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#119301 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your paradigm relies on the unfounded belief that infinitely large numbers of possible pathways to functionality exist. What is your scientific evidence for that assumption?
Who said anything about infinitely large numbers of possible pathways? A wide spectrum of possible directions at any time yes, but not infinite. Look at all the variations of life in the sea, all from a common ancestor. Lots of them didn't work out in the long run, but left evidence in the fossil record.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119302 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Patently false statement. Macroevolution requires mutations resulting the creation of new genes. In dog breeding, no new genes were created. You need a refresher in Biology 101.
Incorrect, it is genetic differences (genes) that account for the different sizes of dogs, their shape and often their abilities. Some dogs have genes that other dogs don't.

You simply don't know what you are talking about again.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119303 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you hear yourself?
Hah, a broken clock is right twice a day.

I guess it was a wider point - Jimbo has shown various logical glitches over the last few days that suggest maybe (just maybe) he is a wind-up merchant.

This is what UC has maintained, he has always said Jimbo is playing with us and not paid any attention to his nonsense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119304 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you'd say something like that. Convergence proves you are wrong. Think about it.

You will just believe any creotard nonsense they feed you.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119305 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone who thinks he can advance a scientific theory with disregard for mathematical probability is not a scientist, but a con man.
So present you maths

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119306 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You validate my point. A belief in ToE requires denial of order and complexity. I suppose that you reject the second law or thermodynamics, founded on mathematical concepts of order and complexity.
The second law of thermodynamics simply stated, says that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.

The thing you are missing is the earth is not an isolated system and never has been.

Get it? Bet not! Dim Bulb!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119307 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Probability barriers are categorically ignored, not answered. In the end, the old "argument from incredulity" card is conveniently pulled out, and the skeptic of evolution is ridiculed for not having faith in a theory that cannot be defended with scientific explanations.
Why do you continually end your posts with bigoted religious comments? As I've said dozens of times, evolution cannot be defended without references to religion. The more you get nailed to the wall, the more cheap and inflammatory your rhetoric becomes.
No, as I said, to date ALL creatard probability arguments have been fatally flawed. No math is needed to debunk them. If you base an argument on a fatally flawed premise one only needs to point out the flaw and the argument is voided.

Here is an extreme version of a fatally flawed argument: Premise all yellow cars are Jaguars. Once someone say this it does not matter how many models of yellow Jaguars he can site the example of one yellow car that is not a Jaguar debunks the argument. No one has to do any more work than that. It does not matter if all of the cars you chose were yellow Jaguars, that is immaterial to the fact that other cars can be yellow too. The fact that your opening premise is incorrect makes all of the math that follows immaterial to the argument.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119308 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Anyone who thinks he can advance a scientific theory with disregard for mathematical probability is not a scientist, but a con man.
I have high regard for mathematical probabilities. But I also know you know nothing about them.

For example, you would state that a the probability of getting 250 head flips in a row with a coin would be 1:2^250, which would be correct for one person flipping one coin.

But if there were 2^1000 people each flipping a coin 250 times, the odds of one of those people getting 250 head flips is near certainty.

See how that works? Bet not! Dim bulb!

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) 3 min Subduction Zone 66,844
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Subduction Zone 221,204
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 7 min Subduction Zone 194
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 19 min pshun2404 51
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 40 min Subduction Zone 28,528
What does the theory of evolution state? 3 hr Dogen 153
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 4 hr Dogen 101
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Genesis Enigma 160,901
More from around the web