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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120563 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Simply divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't answer anything. ToE says that no ID exists. If it can be shone that abiogenesis is impossible, then the central premise of ToE has been demolished.
Nope. ToE addresses the diversity of life not it origins. It works no matter how life started.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120564 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> OK...if it makes you feel any better... You can start with a petri dish of E. coli...If you don't think it's possible to selectively breed a giraffe, you're embracing a theory that proposes that what happened once could never happen again.
Incredible as it sounds, you are correct. What happened once - in nature - will not happen again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120565 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one of the articles that addresses non drug-using female prostitutes...
http://www.duesberg.com/subject/rrbprostitute...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#C...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120566 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
If an intelligent designer exists then why could he not have created all at once in 6 days?
Just as He has said He did
*IF* and intelligent designer existed, he could have. The evidence says otherwise.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120567 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If all genetic lineages that provide a survival advantage survive and the remainder die off, why WOULDN'T they follow similar or even the "same" path ways?
Especially in the same or similar environment.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120568 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I'll make it easier still... You can start with any microorganism.. Or you can genetically engineer one to your specifications... You're just dodging... You can't face up to the absurdity of what you believe.
And tell me ... If evolution can take any one of infinite numbers of pathways as you claim, what's preventing the selective breeding of human from a banana? We do share 60% genetic homology already... You're the one who doesn't understand evolution.
{head/desk}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120569 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Goal or no goal... The proposed pathway is directional, ie, gradual evolution toward flight.
This is called "hindsight".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120570 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't swallow the BS about "feathered dinosaurs". Where is the proof that filamentous imprints are feathers? That is wishful thinking. Do you dutifully believe everything you're told that supports your cherished beliefs, without any objective questioning? Do you seriously think you're engaged in science? Have you ever had the courage to squarely address the innumerable impossibilities to evolution?
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
HTS wrote:
Your unbridled arrogance is seriously impairing your quest for truth. You think you have everything figured out. You think you understand feather evolution. No one... even Dawkins, has a logical explanation...so don't pretend that I'm naive and ignorant because I don't get it. Only an arrogant fool would imagine that he has even close to all the answers.
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120571 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely where your brain usually resides as well...
Are you related to Charles Idemi?
HTS

Williston, ND

#120572 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
100% of AIDS patients are HIV positive.
That's because AIDS by definition requires HIV positivity. The correlation is man made. Thousands of patients with clinical ADIS are HIV negative. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV positive, he has AIDS. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV negative, he has tuberculosis.

Why are you so committed it the HIV/AIDS connection? You have not studied both sides. You have predetermined that I am wrong...and you're obviously just trying to win an argument. I don't expect you to just believe what I'm saying...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120573 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, Russell is obviously very intelligent. According to you, anyone who doesn't share your ridiculous religion of atheism is ignorant... And that must include Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, and many others.
Only in the small minds of anti-science, anti-intellectuals such as you and your ilk.
HTS

Williston, ND

#120574 Feb 28, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You have not read them you are just ranting and putting forward unfounded rejection and denial based on deliberate ignorance and creationist incredulity because such tests disprove your faith which is built on nothing other than you donít understand it must have been goddidit by magic.
As indicated, some of those documents are simply museum literature based on scientific investigation and were included because I considered the childrenís section was more or less the level you could comprehend. Other documents are peer reviewed and reference the type of testing used, times, dates, places, artefacts measured, equipment used and itís calibration certificate information, those present, those doing the tests and their qualification, the acknowledged accuracy of that testing, those verifying the tests and their qualification etc, etc. In other words correct scientific testing using correct scientific procedural methods.
The documentation is laid out in such a way so that any other interested party can repeat those same experiments, test and procedures so that peer review can be accurate and if required offer criticism or methods and offer alternatives
In other they are falsifiable, as true scientific work must be.
in the first place, no Radiometric dating was done to validate those assigned dates. Secondly Radiometric dating is not reproducible,...not even close.,if it were, there would be no purpose for biostratigraphy
HTS

Williston, ND

#120575 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
<quoted text>
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.
None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120576 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
In other words, creationists.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120577 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/16...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120578 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Mike..... Don't you know science magazines are propaganda tools of Satan and the Darwinist crowd.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120579 Feb 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, it's it right here on page 172, Genetic Entropy:
"Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me by way of personal communication that 100 was just a lower estimate and that 300 is his upper estimate. He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious. This means that, from his persepective, "U" (deleterious mutations per generation) would be 30-90. This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible. In the end, he dismisses the entire problem with "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection".

Point being that we don't understand everything yet. Since we have not boxed science up and put it in storage that is a given.

Still, evolution happens. Genetic entropy does not (except perhaps under restrictive conditions).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120580 Feb 28, 2013
One way or another wrote:
What HTS said
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you say that feathers started out as heat regulators before flight, the ony logical conclusion is an end goal. Otherwise they would not have been pre-adapted for flight.

Early feathers were not suitable for flight.

Other animals that fly don't have feathers.

Only the ones evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120581 Feb 28, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Mike..... Don't you know science magazines are propaganda tools of Satan and the Darwinist crowd.
The devil made me do it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120582 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And this from a guy who claims to be a physician and who criticizes ToE without even a high school understanding of it. Laughable.

I know. There must be a creationist site somewhere that encourages creotard to pretend they know more a lot more about science than they do in order to win some credibility they can't sustain because all of their posts point to the fact that they really don't understand anything about evolution.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min DanFromSmithville 141,851
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min DanFromSmithville 168,953
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Brian_G 19,796
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 6 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web