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

#119283 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The probability of a specific point mutation occurring in one generation in mammals is one in two billion. That number alone precludes the possibility of any directional evolution.

ROTFLMFAO.

Since directional evolution does not exist I expect that would be a given.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119284 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>iIn the deluded world of atheism, there are no absolutes... No love, no beauty, no good or evil, no purpose...nothing

Where in the world do you get this nonsense?

Is your self esteem that bad that you have to make up lies about people you don't even know?

Atheists tend to be more compassionate than faith based people. The best psychiatrist I ever worked with is an atheist. I have never seen a doctor who cared more about his patients.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119285 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww the little girl got mad because she made herself look like an idiot AGAIN, but you do it so often, you should be numb to your own stupidity by now.
Oh well, once an idiot, always an idiot.
Keep dodging Poe Boy

So what is your argument about why probability refutes evolution ?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119286 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious from your posts that you are a mindless "go-with-the-flow" sheep who can't think for himself. Regardless of how many search results google gets, or your ten trillion pieces of data that you naively think supports your religion, you cannot logically defend a single tenet of Darwinism without ranting about religion and/or hurling immature insults.

Funny, but you are the one ranting about religion, hurling immature insults, and cannot think for himself. I must conclude that your post is another example of psychological projection.




Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection.
Lets review again.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
evolution on Google Scholar gets about 3,780,000 results.
on pubmed it gets 336447 results.
If you understood at all how science works you would understand that any major errors in a theory gets flushed out quickly when that much research is done.
But now you will bash scientists by calling them names or state they are all biased and will allude to a vast global cabal of evolutionism (without having the guts to come out and state it plainly).
go ahead, get on with it.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119287 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.
So define your probability barriers - have asked your wingman (One way or another) but he seems unwilling to present them - maybe you can do better

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119288 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
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.

“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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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.

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) 10 min SobieskiSavedEurope 134,074
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Hidingfromyou 698
How would creationists explain... 10 hr Dogen 435
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web