Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121099 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A Certified Information Systems Auditor is not a programmer.
You're in over your head. You are so ignorant of the problem, you can't even imagine what it is let alone understand it.
I highly doubt he's even an auditor, I doubt he even knows that that entails.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121100 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A Certified Information Systems Auditor is not a programmer.
You're in over your head. You are so ignorant of the problem, you can't even imagine what it is let alone understand it.
How am I over my? You said it couldn't be done and showed several ways it could. Your computer knowledge is obviously stale.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121101 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I think not, you arrogant ass.
<quoted text>
In baby talk for the pigheaded, I never said I didn't know how to copy & paste.(So you're lying again, liar) I said a simple copy & past would not be sufficient to put the information in a data format for sorting. You insistence that it would betrays your massive ignorance.
And you're still wrong. You seem unfamiliar with basic windows functions.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121102 Mar 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike...Mike...Mike, it's so easy. You just open up Excel and select Data, Import from the Web. Then open up the list from The Clergy Letter Project and Wahlah! You've got it in separate rows and columns. Then organize the way you want and name the headers. Now you can sort each of the fields, for example if you wanted to sort by name of church or last name, etc. It's sooooo easy anyone can do it. Please try it!
I have. It imports in the same format as the web page.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121103 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I think not, you arrogant ass.
<quoted text>
In baby talk for the pigheaded, I never said I didn't know how to copy & paste.(So you're lying again, liar) I said a simple copy & past would not be sufficient to put the information in a data format for sorting. You insistence that it would betrays your massive ignorance.
I guess it's the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water...." Have a nice Mike.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#121104 Mar 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How am I over my? You said it couldn't be done and showed several ways it could. Your computer knowledge is obviously stale.
And yours, naive
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121105 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I've worked continually in the business since the 70s. I can spot a phony like you a mile away.
All I did was copy the Clergy Project list and imported the data into Excel which formats it automatically. Did you even try it? I could do the same thing in Word. Would you like me to show you how it's done? It's easy.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121106 Mar 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're still wrong. You seem unfamiliar with basic windows functions.
... and now I know you know nothing about computers.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121107 Mar 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And yours, naive
Did you try it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121108 Mar 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy claims to be a computer expert of some kind, yet links up to website databases using Excel on a Windoze computer and then tells other people to do it too. Look UC, playing WoW 24 hours a day does not make you an expert on computers, it makes you a moron with a keyboard and a strange bridge troll on fairy fetish. First you're using Windoze, that's enough to pretty much say you're clueless, because that's what Windoze is written for, the clueless business person or gamer. Now I don't mind most gamers, they're a cool bunch, but they aren't as stupid as you are. You then use Excel, which can transmit computer op code, you know, actual execution code that can contain malware, and connect it straight into a website for a database dump. Databases can contain op code information as well, yes, you can upload a dll straight into a database record then patch it into any dll on a Windoze machine that downloads the data directly through Excel with little more than a few extra kilobytes, not noticeable in most database dumps. Excel has access to the root directory ... oh yeah, almost forgot, Windoze user .. your "system" directory, and dlls can be stored and patched without requiring a super user log in. Thus, you are essentially saying "hey, I want a virus, give it to me now!"

Computer expert my arse.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#121109 Mar 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
LMFAO!!
Australopithecus has nothing to do with Australian aborigines. Christine never mentioned aborigines at all.
I will let Christine swamp you with picture of early Homo sapiens if she hasn't already.
Why don't you think at all about what I'm saying. Aborigines exhibit phenotypic differences with Europeans, which demonstrates genetic variability within a species. I never inferred that they had anything to do with australipithicus.

SZ, you've made a veritable jackass out of yourself with your aimless babblings about radiometric dating, something which you obviously know nothing about. Like so many DarwinBots, you dutifully believe what you are told because of your predetermined faith in your religion. The entire foundation of radiometric dating has been repeatedly debunked, and you simply ignore science in favor of you atheistic fantasies. It is not reproducible and has been proven over and over again to be grossly inaccurate.

Do you think a "picture" of early Homo sapiens constitutes scientific evidence? Are you looking to make an even bigger fool of yourself?

On a similar note, you blindly cling to the recycled argument of ERVs, not realizing that the existence of such sequences only proclaims intelligent design. You think "reactivation" means that a new virus was created from human DNA, further compounding the obvious fact of your base ignorance of biology.

SZ, your prized paradigm is crashing. You naively think that all legitimate scientists are committed to Darwinism. They are, in fact, abandoning it in droves like rats swimming from a sinking ship.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#121110 Mar 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we can, in fact we can argue anything we want, at least until you learn what evidence is. Since you are still stuck in stupid evidence wise we can simply point out the fact that we have evidence and you don't. In fact, and I do need to repeat this point, you don't even know what evidence is.
And that's your fault. You were the one that ran away from the evidence lesson.
Yes, you can argue anything you want... but you're the one who is always harping about "science"... while in the same breath abandoning its principles. You can't argue the validity of a scientific theory by references to the truthfulness of that theory.... and that's the only strategy that you or anyone can employ to defend evolution.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#121111 Mar 2, 2013
SZ... My challenge to you is to defend evolution without references to evolutionary assumptions and without bringing up religion.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121112 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you can argue anything you want... but you're the one who is always harping about "science"... while in the same breath abandoning its principles. You can't argue the validity of a scientific theory by references to the truthfulness of that theory.... and that's the only strategy that you or anyone can employ to defend evolution.
Could you please do me a favor, make some sense in your next post, please. This is getting redundant.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121113 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Slow down...
You haven't established that ERVs are past viral insertions. They are only claimed to be.


No silly. This is an established fact. These still occur today and a lot of studies have been done on them.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> That claim crashed when ERVs were found to possess functionality.

In what way? Apparently you don't understand mutations or you would understand ERVs which, functionally, are quite similar.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Now you're only left with molecular homology, which proves nothing. Homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.

Left with Homology? Even if I give you Homology (and there is absolutely no reason I should) you still have the plethora of other proofs of evolution, not to mention that evolution is observable.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121114 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. You're still dodging. Answer the question.

SZ's request is not unreasonable. How scientific questions are asked are very important. A precise questions leads to a precise answer.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121115 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
SZ... My challenge to you is to defend evolution without references to evolutionary assumptions and without bringing up religion.

The ONLY scientific dating method that I can think of that has an "evolutionary assumption" is .....

Okay, I was wrong. There are none.


No "evolutionary assumptions" are used in any field of science. Sorry, but that is another creotard myth.
LowellGuy

United States

#121116 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you think at all about what I'm saying.
You first.
LowellGuy

United States

#121117 Mar 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, that site does not debunk the methodology at all. Not only hat the writer knew it too. That makes him a liar. To do that it would have to have gone through peer review, and the writer is supposedly a PhD so he should understand peer review. Since he avoided peer review, or even worse was rejected by peer review he knew his ideas did not hold up.
It looks like all of the cases of "excess argon" he cited were associated with of phenocysts. Typically they were found in phenocrysts of olivine and similar minerals.
It seems that neither you nor the writer knows what phenocrysts are or why olivine phenocrysts would have different dates. Let me explain what phenocrysts are. They are obviously large crystals in a smaller crystal matrix. I can tell you don't know where phenocrysts come from. Phenocrysts are minerals that were usually from an earlier event. They were already crystalized before the eruption. Their could have been many different sources for the phenocrysts and are something you have to be aware of when you date something. So when dating rock with phenocrysts in it it is a good idea to date the phenocrysts separate from the rock as a whole to see if you get a different date.
Guess what you practically never find in volcanic ash?
God?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#121118 Mar 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you can argue anything you want... but you're the one who is always harping about "science"... while in the same breath abandoning its principles. You can't argue the validity of a scientific theory by references to the truthfulness of that theory.... and that's the only strategy that you or anyone can employ to defend evolution.

How to understand science: 101.

You are claiming science uses circular reasoning when it does not.

One of the problems with evolution is that there is just so much evidence from so many fields, from so many people, over such a long period of time, that one can miss the forest because of all the trees.

Now, here is how science is done:

Steps of the scientific method

Step Evolutions fulfillment.
----------
1. Observation Evolution occurs (Plato)
2. Ask a Question How does it occur (Lamarck, Darwin)
3. Do Background Research Darwin, et al
4. Construct a Hypothesis Natural selection
5. Test by Experiments Darwin - Present researcher
6. Data and Conclusions Over 100,000 experiments
7. Communicate Your Results Books, journal articles
8. Peer review critique & follow-up

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) 23 min MIDutch 164,928
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Frindly 3,269
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Frindly 83,837
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 2 hr Dogen 40
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 21 hr MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
More from around the web