Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

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!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#119309 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You need to define "complex"
No. YOU are the one who said life is too complex to be caused by natural processes. You seem to be claiming that you understand the limits of what can naturally occur.

I maintain that "complex" is a relative term, depending on what you are comparing something to. Iron is very complex. Iron marks the limit of what medium stars can naturally produce. But iron is simple compared to gold, which only naturally occurs in a supernova star.(All the gold on earth came from the remnants of a supernova star.)
HTS

Williston, ND

#119310 Feb 23, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You can't argue evolution by making evolutionary assumptions. You have no proof that all life in the sea shares common descent.
HTS

Williston, ND

#119311 Feb 23, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. YOU are the one who said life is too complex to be caused by natural processes. You seem to be claiming that you understand the limits of what can naturally occur.
I maintain that "complex" is a relative term, depending on what you are comparing something to. Iron is very complex. Iron marks the limit of what medium stars can naturally produce. But iron is simple compared to gold, which only naturally occurs in a supernova star.(All the gold on earth came from the remnants of a supernova star.)
In biological systems, complexity can be defined as a system with multiple interacting and integrated components, all contributing to functionality.
One way or another

United States

#119312 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
You're a complete moron, there's not a chance in hell of anyone getting 250 head flips in a row you moron. It's impossible.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#119313 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true! He was home schooled and self taught. His marks were excellent!!
His mom graded on the curve. He got by with a C average.
HTS

Williston, ND

#119314 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Evolution doesn't have anywhere near the numbers that you are eluding to, regardless of the hundreds of millions of years that you imagine. There are only about 10^80 atoms in the visible universe. It is literally impossible for anyone to flip a coin and achieve 250 heads in a row, even if you factor in billions of people on billions of planets in billions of galaxies for billions of years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119315 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.

i believe that gravity is also mathematically impossible (slightly less impossible since the discovery of the higgs, but still impossible).

It still exists as does evolution.

The fact that you actually believe that evolution has been "debunked through scientific proofs" is a real testament to how gullible people can be when they want to be.
HTS

Williston, ND

#119316 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Total BS ... If "ak;hlegoiaoioieupoehqilw fva is information, explain to me what it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119317 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.

I was not aware you were waiting for this.

I can help.

The mathematical probability that the Indianapolis Colts will win Super Bowl XLI is 100%.
We know this because it is historically recorded and observed.

The mathematical probability that evolution happens is also 100% for the exact same reason.

So, you now know that evolution is not only mathematically possible but the odds of it occurring is 100%.

This is not the sort of funny math that creationists like to use. This is proven reality.

I hope this helps.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119318 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.

Observed reality trumps axiomatic statements.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119319 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a complete moron, there's not a chance in hell of anyone getting 250 head flips in a row you moron. It's impossible.
And that's why you never did well in math or science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119320 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

You are precisely correct and you beat me to the punch.

Well played.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119321 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.

Wow. You really have no understanding of evolution whatsoever.


http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-...

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evoluti...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119322 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.

There are no probability barriers to evolution.

Complexity is an abstract descriptive term. It does not exist expect in relationship to something else.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119323 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution doesn't have anywhere near the numbers that you are eluding to, regardless of the hundreds of millions of years that you imagine. There are only about 10^80 atoms in the visible universe. It is literally impossible for anyone to flip a coin and achieve 250 heads in a row, even if you factor in billions of people on billions of planets in billions of galaxies for billions of years.
It's a math exercise dummy, it's about the numbers. And you probably would achieve 250 heads in a row using those parameters.

Now just imagine the number of atoms in an ocean combining only within the parameters of natural law and the odds of coming up with a sequence of amino acids that qualify as life .... at least reproductive virus like life. That is mathematically plausible. AND given that we are here now, that event is in the past, then the odds become certainty.

BTW, 10^80 is the number of atoms in the visible universe, but we now know that 90% of the milky way alone is not visible to us.

Try to keep up, M'kay?
One way or another

United States

#119324 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's why you never did well in math or science.
Oh my doodness, I'm just gonna cry. Lmfao

You moron

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119325 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.

Mr. Booga has it correct again. Imagine a deck of cards. Regardless of if you "stack" them, place them in some sort of order or shuffle them the information is exactly the same. There is exactly the same amount of "information" either way. Context always matters. So if you stack the deck to give yourself 4 aces and I pick the game lo-ball then you are screwed.

You seem to not be able to or not want to think through simple problems. Either you are not very bright or (and I honestly think this more likely) you are so fixated on your opinion that you do not allow yourself to see what you don't want to see.



Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, all sequences have information. Whether or not it is useful information is a separate question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119326 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You can't argue evolution by making evolutionary assumptions. You have no proof that all life in the sea shares common descent.
Once again I have to point out that you cannot argue about "proof" if you do not understand evidence.

Since you have no desire to learn I will inform you that, long story cut short, you are totally wrong.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr showmethemoney 171,807
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Paul Porter1 142,587
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 5 hr Paul Porter1 9
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 5 hr Paul Porter1 36
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr thetruth 20,593
News Intelligent design 18 hr Paul Porter1 3
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Paul Porter1 266
More from around the web