Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#122191 Mar 7, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So now moron, you claim NASA is lying and Wikipedia is your savior? Lol
No, moron! I am saying that you are lying about NASA and even Wikipedia knows it.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#122192 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You call me an extremist because I believe in the concept of "purpose"?
"purpose" is a human concept. It doesn't exist in nature.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122193 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, now I understand...
Any scientific challenge to evolution that can't be answered is a "question by an idiot"...
Unfortunately, I don't think you have any canned retorts that you can pull out of your hip pocket...
You might have to actually think for yourself on this one...
Don't worry HTS

You wont get any sense out of SZ

He thinks elephants have external testicles

...And please don't bring up Archie....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122194 Mar 7, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
"purpose" is a human concept. It doesn't exist in nature.
Just like evolution....doesn't exist in nature
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122195 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're embarrassing all of your atheist counterparts by your pathetic attempts to dodge questions that you cannot answer.
Is that all?

He's having a really brilliant day then!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122196 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're embarrassing all of your atheist counterparts by your pathetic attempts to dodge questions that you cannot answer.
Hardly. I am not the one that is dodging. That is you. I have offered countless times to teach you how evidence works so that when I show you evidence you cannot reject it out of hand like all of your creatard friends do.

You cannot point to one of your idiot questions that I have dodged. Not giving you a complete answer since it involves evidence that you would deny is not dodging a question.

So stop projecting. You are the one who continues to dodge by trying to take refuge in ignorance. It won't work with me anymore. If you won't learn what evidence is all I need to do is to point out that we have evidence. Your own actions make free me from the need to present evidence.
One way or another

United States

#122197 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It is impossible to create a calibration curve for C-14 dating longer than proven history...ie, longer than about 4,000 years. Anything beyond that is not science. No one knows what the level of C-14 was in the atmosphere at that time, what the earth's magnetic poles were doing, etc. Raw speculation is not science.
True, but he challenged, so I was giving him the chance to prove what he says.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122198 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry HTS
You wont get any sense out of SZ
He thinks elephants have external testicles
...And please don't bring up Archie....
You didn't know that little tidbit until you had to look into the fact your failed behemoth claim.

Don't try to act superior when you are one of the prize idiots on this forum. You are second only to Jimbo for complete idiocy on this forum. Congratulations!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122199 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like evolution....doesn't exist in nature
Poor Rusty. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. It is hard to find a place where evolution is not self evidence, besides in the brains of creatards.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#122200 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
Just like evolution....doesn't exist in nature
No, it doesn't. But it is accurately descriptive of how nature works. Get used to it.
One way or another

United States

#122201 Mar 7, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another christian lie. You don't read much at all or you would have noticed further down on the same page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dati...
Go on! Keep lying monkey boy!!
Either bring your calibration curve or STFU.

You know you won't bring the reason for the curve, because it would prove what a fool you are. Lol
One way or another

United States

#122202 Mar 7, 2013
The curve WAS used science claimed, because of the industrial revolution. Now the idiots controlling science are claiming a curve with no reasoning.

Fruking morons are destroying children's minds.
HTS

Williston, ND

#122203 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. I am not the one that is dodging. That is you. I have offered countless times to teach you how evidence works so that when I show you evidence you cannot reject it out of hand like all of your creatard friends do.
You cannot point to one of your idiot questions that I have dodged. Not giving you a complete answer since it involves evidence that you would deny is not dodging a question.
So stop projecting. You are the one who continues to dodge by trying to take refuge in ignorance. It won't work with me anymore. If you won't learn what evidence is all I need to do is to point out that we have evidence. Your own actions make free me from the need to present evidence.
Answer the question...
What is the evolutionary explanation for seals in Lake Baikal?
I know you don't have an answer... I'm curious how you are going to try to weasel out of this...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122204 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question...
What is the evolutionary explanation for seals in Lake Baikal?
I know you don't have an answer... I'm curious how you are going to try to weasel out of this...
I am not the weasel here. I am still waiting for you to finish the evidence lesson we started. But what the heck. I am in a good mood so:

Here is a simple question for you. Do you thin that lake was always the size it is today?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122205 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question...
What is the evolutionary explanation for seals in Lake Baikal?
I know you don't have an answer... I'm curious how you are going to try to weasel out of this...
By the way, I don't think that the proper term for the explanation of how the seals got to Lake Baikal is "evolutionary".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#122206 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am unaware of Americans adding syllables to words, unless you are talking about people deep in the Bible Belt who will turn a two syllable word into a three syllable word almost every time and when pushed take it all the way up to four. Listen to a television evangelist from Georgia say "Jesus" some day. When the saliva starts to fly you will hear a good four or even five syllables there.
Now of course the British do tend to elide the occasional syllable. I often hear them talking about how an appliance needs a "bat tree". Hear baseball bats are usually made out of White Ash, or perhaps they are talking about the nocturnal animals that really don't get stuck in people's hair. Of course I have no idea what that has to do with a remote control.
Go ahead an use the word "Capiche". My prejudices need some loosening up now and then.
I offered 3 examples in the original post!

obliged -> obligated

oriented -> orientated

use -> utilize (yes the latter is a real word too but now used too often in the former sense esp by MBA types)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122207 Mar 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"40 years ago"?!?! It's been more like 204 years!
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck
It is perhaps no coincidence that a former soldier, decorated for courage on the field of battle, was also the first scientist to suggest explicitly that human beings had evolved from apes (Philosophie Zoologique, 1809):
"Certainly, if some race of apes, especially the most perfect among them, lost, by necessity of circumstances, or some other cause, the habit of climbing trees and grasping branches with the feet,, and if the individuals of that race, over generations, were forced to use their feet only for walking and ceased to use their hands as feet, doubtless these apes would be transformed into two-handed beings and their feet would no longer serve any purpose other than to walk."
http://www.macroevolution.net/jean-baptiste-l...
Or

Maybe we evolved from a common ancestor of this lovely bear

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122208 Mar 7, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. But it is accurately descriptive of how nature works. Get used to it.
I am not used to pathetic wishful thinking...

Only facts and science...real science
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122209 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Rusty. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field, and in the fossil record. It is hard to find a place where evolution is not self evidence, besides in the brains of creatards.
Where has evolution been observed to occur??
What lab?

Where in nature?

Where in the fossil record??

Have I missed some excruciatingly NEW findings?

Like from a few seconds ago?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#122210 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask for proof that Lucy was a pre-human ancestor.
Straw man. Any paleontologist will tell that Lucy (Aust. afarensis) may or may not be a direct common ancestor of modern humans. There were a number of hominid species around at the time of Lucy, and possibly others we have not yet found either.

What we KNOW is that there were, obviously, a bunch of ape-human intermediate species around following a radiation when some ancestral ape adapted to bipedalism. By intermediate I mean purely the objective sense of measurement - they had skeletal structures, dentitions, brain shapes, and so on, IN BETWEEN ape and human. Evolution predicts that during any ape human transition, intermediates should be found. They have been.

Creationism neither predicted them nor explains them. Especially when all the intermediates are lined up on a timeline as we see, exactly as evolution predicted, that the fossils are decreasingly classic 'apelike' and increasingly human from the period 4mya to now.

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) 6 min dirtclod 121,129
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 1 hr The Dude 721
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 2 hr woodtick57 383
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr MikeF 138,204
Darwin on the rocks 6 hr Dogen 373
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE