Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,845)

Showing posts 116,881 - 116,900 of171,254
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119981
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing about the God I believe in.
I have not attempted to prove my religion with science... you have.
You are drunken with arrogance and condescension.
How can anyone take anything you say seriously when you constantly spew bigotry and hatred? It is obvious that your perverted worldview has resulted in self deception.
You mock me for "foolish beliefs... You think I''m stupid for not believing in your ridiculous fairytales about microbes evolving into humans. You think millions of years can create any complexity because you have faith in a process that has never been observed by man... You cannot counter any of my claims. All you ever do is create distractions and smokescreens that are transparent to anyone who is interested in objective science.
I really don't care what your superstitions are. And don't say that I spew bigotry and hatred. That always starts with you and yours and then you can't take it when it comes back at you.

Yes, I am rather condescending to idiots who don't know that they are idiots. And worse yet will not even attempt to learn. I know you are a total moron who has some strange bigotry against the fact that we evolved.

Too bad all science is on my side and you know none is on yours. Why else would you resist a chance to actually learn something?Z

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119982
Feb 25, 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?
No it does not. Merely an indeterminate number, which cannot be foreseen. Irreducible Complexity on the other hand arbitrarily restricts the assumed number of pathways with no evidence that life actually has to follow those restrictions.

When looking at the 3-boned middle ear, we have a good fossil sequence showing this macro-evolutionary event step by step. Yet no biologist living 300 million years ago could have predicted this series of changes in advance. Many aspects of complex systems, as we see even today in world economics, or in weather forecasting, are extremely and inherently unpredictable in many ways.

Scientists now know that even if they had a sensor on every square meter of the earth's surface and every supercomputer in the world analysing the data, they still would not be able to tell you what the temperature will be in Boston on the 30th of April this year, apart from estimates using historical averages for the time of year.

Science in these cases is restricted to predicting the underlying forces at work rather than the exact future state. Likewise, when looking in hindsight, we still cannot exactly say what particulars caused what. IC makes this logical mistake because it assumed that evolution proceeded with the end in sight. Those multi-boned jaws of reptiles did not evolve in order to later enable the 3-boned middle ear, feathers did not evolve originally to enable later flying, and so on. The error of ID is to assume that evolution says these things did.

Reminds me of conspiracy theorists who sift through historical data looking for the "grand plan of the conspirators" through the ages... Illuminati, Masons, Jews, whatever. Perhaps they take comfort in the idea that somebody is planning things, that the alternative - that it was all contingent, circumstantial, unplanned and unplannable...is the most horrifying prospect of all to them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119983
Feb 25, 2013
 
Poor Jimbo, everybody in the world has kicked him when he was down. At least that is what he thinks.

He is a failure as carpet layer and now he is trying to break into science. Talk about laugh my ass off!
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119985
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No it does not. Merely an indeterminate number, which cannot be foreseen. Irreducible Complexity on the other hand arbitrarily restricts the assumed number of pathways with no evidence that life actually has to follow those restrictions.
When looking at the 3-boned middle ear, we have a good fossil sequence showing this macro-evolutionary event step by step. Yet no biologist living 300 million years ago could have predicted this series of changes in advance. Many aspects of complex systems, as we see even today in world economics, or in weather forecasting, are extremely and inherently unpredictable in many ways.
Scientists now know that even if they had a sensor on every square meter of the earth's surface and every supercomputer in the world analysing the data, they still would not be able to tell you what the temperature will be in Boston on the 30th of April this year, apart from estimates using historical averages for the time of year.
Science in these cases is restricted to predicting the underlying forces at work rather than the exact future state. Likewise, when looking in hindsight, we still cannot exactly say what particulars caused what. IC makes this logical mistake because it assumed that evolution proceeded with the end in sight. Those multi-boned jaws of reptiles did not evolve in order to later enable the 3-boned middle ear, feathers did not evolve originally to enable later flying, and so on. The error of ID is to assume that evolution says these things did.
Reminds me of conspiracy theorists who sift through historical data looking for the "grand plan of the conspirators" through the ages... Illuminati, Masons, Jews, whatever. Perhaps they take comfort in the idea that somebody is planning things, that the alternative - that it was all contingent, circumstantial, unplanned and unplannable...is the most horrifying prospect of all to them.
Lmao,-- merely an indeterminate number? You fruking moron, why didn't your mother just slap you and drop you off at an asylum where you belong? You pretend that you are fooling everyone else, which is just funny as hell, especially when you do it constantly.

I see that it works on your Evo moron buddies, but then everyone's not as dumb as y'all.

You then spew the following pathetic, moronic trash where your own words refute themselves, all in the same sentence.,--Irreducible Complexity on the other hand arbitrarily restricts the assumed number of pathways with no evidence that life actually has to follow those restrictions.

You fruking moron, go back to your hole.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119986
Feb 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it. Your cherished doctrine of genetic determinism has been scientifically debunked by the ENCODE project.
Ah, the "cherished doctrine of genetic determinism". Another straw-man construction by creatards.

Why would biologists care, in the evolutionary sense, whether everything is in the genes, or whether some function can be determined in other parts of the genome or indeed other parts of the cell? Why would biologists care, in the evolutionary sense, about epigenetic change? Why would they care even about environmental adaptability?

None of these things would matter to the veracity of evolution.

What you are doing is making the usual error of those who see reductionism in action. Until there was reason to believe otherwise, the working model was to assume characteristics were determined by the genes in the first instance. This was not a "doctrine", it was a working model, starting with the simplest approach.

The same reductionism was to assume that geological processes were gradual until proven otherwise, and that the universe was in a stable state until proven otherwise, that all members of a single chemical element were identical until proven otherwise, that the constants of nature stay constant until proven otherwise, etc.

The usual and tired ploy of you creationists is to claim these working assumptions are "doctrines", which is your feeble attempt to bring down the rational empirical enterprise to your own lowly and superstitious level. The only "doctrine" science adheres to is that the final arbiter of truth is observation.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119987
Feb 25, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are not interested in science, SZ. You are religious zealot, wallowing in self absorption and arrogance. Anything that doesn't fit with your worldview is rejected without any investigation. I will again remind you... evo-babbling is not science.
You are back to projecting.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119988
Feb 25, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lmao,-- merely an indeterminate number? You fruking moron, why didn't your mother just slap you and drop you off at an asylum where you belong? You pretend that you are fooling everyone else, which is just funny as hell, especially when you do it constantly.
I see that it works on your Evo moron buddies, but then everyone's not as dumb as y'all.
You then spew the following pathetic, moronic trash where your own words refute themselves, all in the same sentence.,--Irreducible Complexity on the other hand arbitrarily restricts the assumed number of pathways with no evidence that life actually has to follow those restrictions.
You fruking moron, go back to your hole.
Perhaps you should stop pretending that you have a clue as to what anybody else is talking about.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119989
Feb 26, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're delusional. Scientific observation contradicts your faith. There is no scientific observation to suggestion that disorder can spontaneously proceed to order and complexity without an intelligent force.
I have given you evidence for intelligent design... beauty, complexity of life, man's conscience, the fullness of the earth. You have overwhelming evidence. You cannot explain any of these observations by science, but can only rationalize them away by imaginative stories of how you suppose that evolution works. If this evidence is not to your liking, then admit and tell me what sort of evidence would convince you.
Why are you so deliberately ignorant?– is it goddidit?

Just because you do not understand the universe does not mean goddidit, there is no scientific observation to suggest goddidt it, there is plenty of scientific inquiry and hard scientific evidence to suggest that right back for 13.7+ billion years the formation of the universe was/is chaotically random. Prior to a point 10^-34th of a second after the event known as the big bang is unknown by science, religion, anyone including YOU. Anything suggested before that point is pure conjecture.

Have you ever seen the results of an explosion? Imagine the biggest one ever and then try explaining how that is ordered.

Again for the hard of understanding, you have given me your opinion, not evidence.

Opinion IS NOT evidence,

Opinion NEVER WILL BE evidence.

Opinion IS opinion, your personal view and nothing more. However you are welcome to delude yourself with your opinion but don’t be surprised that people who have actually spent time learning the FACTS and studying the EVIDENCE don’t all fall down at you feet and pray to your god.

I have asked you to provide proof of what you claim, as is required for evidence and you have been UNABLE to provide such proof but instead simply repeated your personal opinion claiming it as evidence.

This is one of the many problems with the typical christard. They take English words and phrases and DISTORT them to suite their own sensibilities. Opinion is not fact, your word is not evidence, faith is not truth, morality has been around thousands of years longer than christianity and good news is not news but 2000 year old olds

I am not a scientist or teacher of science but these observations CAN be explained and learned, whether you like that or not is irrelevant, it is fact. The 2nd law of thermodynamics explains why the world and universe are as they are, sorry if you are too stupid to understand that. The universe started with an explosion and has been declining into disorder since.

As for evolution, the theory EXPLAINS the fact, learn it before slagging if off from the point of christian ignorance. Again it’s not my problem is you are too stupid to understand.

Professor Daniel S. Fisher starts one of his presentations on the understanding of evolution “The basic laws of evolution have been known for more than a century and there is overwhelming evidence for the facts of evolution.”

I have told you what would convince me – EVIDENCE – and to date ALL the evidence convinces me of what I believe and there is NO evidence, anywhere, anywhen to say goddidit

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119990
Feb 26, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! Patently false statement by ChristineM. Monarch butterflies migrate from NE America to regions in Mexico over 3 generations. How would they learn to navigate to the exact spot if they've never been there? Here's an article to help you correct your mistakes and aid your learning:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...
Note –“For the most part migratory behaviour is learned”.

You even cherry picked the part of the sentence that shows you to be a moron – how stupid can you get?

For the most part means there are exceptions so how the fook does that make it a false statement? Or are you LYING for you god again?

And here are three academic papers to show what I say has substance

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.11...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF...

READ AND LEARN.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119991
Feb 26, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What evidence do you have that any human evolutin took place in Europe?... and what dating methods are you using to determine a 40,000 year time period? I know you can't be specific because you have no evidence.
Your strawman characatures of creationism only reveal your base ignorance and religious bias. Your "evolutiondidit with magic" paradigm is nothing more than a false religion founded on atheism.
See the skull I use for my avatar, that’s one.

Cro magnon man. Homo-sapiens, over 18,000 years their skeletal structure evolved from a more dense bone structure with a larger skull (and hence bigger brain) to what is now considered the human norm. This happened, there is evidence and even with your goddidt attitude the physical proof CANNOT be denied because it exists.

Several dating methods including Carbon dating of the material used in cave painting, skeletal remains and fire pits. Dendrochronology of the charred remains in those fire pits. Thermoluminescence, optical dating and analysis of the geological column to name just a few. I know what you are going to say, they are not accurate but here you will be totally wrong – again. Individually they are accurate to a very few percent, in some with less than 1% error. Combined they bring that dating error down to around 0.1%. Now tell me what is 0.1% of 30,000 years and ask if I am bothered by such inaccuracy?

BTW – here is EVIDENCE
http://www.musee-prehistoire-eyzies.fr/
The English language part of the site
http://rmn.fr/english/les-musees-et-leurs-exp...
And just for you, the children’s English language version
http://rmn.fr/english/children/museum-experie...

Do not try and bad mouth my education with goddidt lies. It just highlights your deliberate ignorance and pathetic need to lower everyone to your level. I have EVIDENCE – YOU DON’T. When you do then feel free to mock me for my belief until then go boil your head in a bucket of p|ss

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119992
Feb 26, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Do you enjoy being a religious bigot? Does it make you feel good to mock the sacred beliefs of others?
Sorry? I don’t quite understand you here

Are you saying that you are free to mock the beliefs of others if they don’t coincide with you personal belief but if anyone says anything against your beliefs you get all incredulous?

You hypocritical moron

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119993
Feb 26, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>interesting... You all know it exists, but you demand that I define it.

In general parlance, sure. But it is not a scientific term, nor does it appear useful as one.

If you were up to the task you would have defined it scientifically.

Yet another opportunity to stomp on the grave you dug for yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119994
Feb 26, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus taught us that he did not guarantee there would not be conflict. If you choose righteousness and your brother or sister chooses evil, you will probably be faced with arguments and conflicts. Conversion to Christ can result in straind family relationships. Christ never meant to delude believers that he promised a life devoid of all conflict.


partial credit. Good as far as you go.

Perhaps I should have given you more information but you only asked for the verse.

One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119995
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the "cherished doctrine of genetic determinism". Another straw-man construction by creatards.
Why would biologists care, in the evolutionary sense, whether everything is in the genes, or whether some function can be determined in other parts of the genome or indeed other parts of the cell? Why would biologists care, in the evolutionary sense, about epigenetic change? Why would they care even about environmental adaptability?
None of these things would matter to the veracity of evolution.
What you are doing is making the usual error of those who see reductionism in action. Until there was reason to believe otherwise, the working model was to assume characteristics were determined by the genes in the first instance. This was not a "doctrine", it was a working model, starting with the simplest approach.
The same reductionism was to assume that geological processes were gradual until proven otherwise, and that the universe was in a stable state until proven otherwise, that all members of a single chemical element were identical until proven otherwise, that the constants of nature stay constant until proven otherwise, etc.
The usual and tired ploy of you creationists is to claim these working assumptions are "doctrines", which is your feeble attempt to bring down the rational empirical enterprise to your own lowly and superstitious level. The only "doctrine" science adheres to is that the final arbiter of truth is observation.
That's why out of billions of fossils, the so called scientists can't trace the progression of even one animal or man through time.

There is not even one gradualistic set of bones throughout your so called evolutionary time line.

Wow, what a muzzle the so called leaders have on most all scientists, making them look like complete morons.

Then there's you childish morons, believing anything they tell you. Lol, you morons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119996
Feb 26, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Everyone knows that Jimbo is best left ignored.
Point taken. It is kinda fun on a boring day to wind him up though.
Subduction Zone wrote:
He is perhaps the most delusional, most uneducated, most incompetent, total ass that I have ever seen on the internet. Did I write most delusional? Yes, I see I did. You must understand that he is incredibly delusional. If he is on your side it is the worst thing possible for your argument.
Agreed.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119997
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The billions of fossils prove there is no gradualistic change in even one creature throughout time and yet, the fully corrupted school systems tell children that science must be observable.

The observable fossil record shows not one creatures bones gradually changing through time, as evolution claims.

Do you enjoy dumbing down children to make you feel superior? Is life about whatever power you can have over children that never grow up, like the evolutionary morons on this site?
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119998
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

It seems these evolutionary children will say anything to hold onto their observable stupidity.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119999
Feb 26, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why out of billions of fossils, the so called scientists can't trace the progression of even one animal or man through time.
There is not even one gradualistic set of bones throughout your so called evolutionary time line.
Wow, what a muzzle the so called leaders have on most all scientists, making them look like complete morons.
Then there's you childish morons, believing anything they tell you. Lol, you morons.
Sure there are. The continuum of fossil skulls for hominids goes right back from modern man to the very apelike skull of australopithecus afarensis. There is a seemless series of changes, so much so that there are arguments over many fossils as to whether they belong to one species or the next.

And that is just hominids. There are many others.

What about the fact that even creationists cannot agree as to whether archaeopteryx is a bird or a therapod dinosaur? And we have 30+ other "feathered dino / bird" species that further blur the line.

Similarly, the transition from reptile to mammal.

There are too many examples to count on this forum.

You just read some creationist crap and accepted it, that's all.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120000
Feb 26, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The billions of fossils prove there is no gradualistic change in even one creature throughout time and yet, the fully corrupted school systems tell children that science must be observable.
The observable fossil record shows not one creatures bones gradually changing through time, as evolution claims.
Do you enjoy dumbing down children to make you feel superior? Is life about whatever power you can have over children that never grow up, like the evolutionary morons on this site?
Ditto my last post.

In any case, evolution does not predict the smooth continuum that creationists insist it does. Even back to Darwin that was not the case. In other words, once again you keep arguing against straw men, not the ACTUAL theory of evolution.

Evolutionary change is rapid when the environment is unstable, and less so when it is stable. Once a species is optimised to a particular environment, its unlikely to keep rapidly changing until something in the environment changes.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120001
Feb 26, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why out of billions of fossils, the so called scientists can't trace the progression of even one animal or man through time.
There is not even one gradualistic set of bones throughout your so called evolutionary time line.
Wow, what a muzzle the so called leaders have on most all scientists, making them look like complete morons.
Then there's you childish morons, believing anything they tell you. Lol, you morons.
BTW, with your indiscriminate scatter gun approach, you still have not managed to defend ID and irreducible complexity against the error I pointed out. YOU nor anybody can say what the LIMIT on possible past changes and functions or intermediate structures leading to a modern structure had to be. Therefore ID fails as an argument even in principle.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 116,881 - 116,900 of171,254
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

13 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min HOG_ the Hand of God 111,963
Intelligent Design - Deist style (Dec '09) 1 hr FREE SERVANT 51
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 133,137
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 3 hr TurkanaBoy 1,245
Science News (Sep '13) Fri positronium 2,822
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) Jul 10 DanFromSmithville 358
Plan your Relocation needs with Packers and Mov... Jul 7 shashi12 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••