Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#122609 Mar 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an Id-iot, following mo-rons. Have fun while it lasts. The one world gov will see the end of your mouth and mine as well.
Nope -
you misunderstood the article
You posted your usual delusional rant based on your misunderstanding
I called you on it
You are not honest enough to admit you got something wrong.

I know how you always rant on about how education dumbs people down - but if you are representative of someone with no more than 10th grade education - then suspect will stick with education.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122610 Mar 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you make statements that you can't validate?
BONG!!!
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#122611 Mar 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
THAT is most certainly spam.
And totally wrong. No precursors, huh? Idiot.
Here's MikeF trying desperately not to be a schoolgirl armed with a wet lettuce...

Well MikeF

Where are your transitionals?

There are an estimated 1 billion fossils..

Should be an easy task

Lets start with transitionals for ...er...let's say.. T rex

There are 32 specimens of which 12 are nearly complete

So, what's the story.....?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122612 Mar 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all you morons do.
Only when you morons bring it up.

That WAS the point Jimbo. And you know it.
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#122613 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We know that. And there are signs of erosion at the boundary of the two strata. What part of that do you not understand?
I am referring to the extensive STRAIGHT line between these layers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122614 Mar 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no biological evidence.
So you need to demonstrate possibility.
Did that for you 8 months ago.(shrug)
defender

Tucker, GA

#122615 Mar 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>No you dishonest, delusional sack of shit.

What YOU said was that the wiki article said that the recombination can't happen twice as quickly

One way or another wrote, "?
Then the wiki moron says,---sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. What a fruking lying piece of shit. Sexual recombination is just a male and females DNA combining. That CAN'T happen 2 times faster you bloody idiot."

The fact that you don't have the intellect to understand the article is a given - the fact that it your post exposes your dishonesty is a bonus.
Dishonest?.... Peking Man, Peltdown Man, Nabraska Man, Lucy, Stanley Miller experiment, Ida, and on and on... Yeah tell us all about whose dishonest...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#122616 Mar 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
Is Earth's gravitational pull determined by its mass or by its rotational speed? This is important.
defender wrote:
I'll never understand why the evolutionist use this argument because it just proves all the more that they have no true time line of which to measure...
You're just not keeping up, Scooter.
defender

Tucker, GA

#122617 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>Here's MikeF trying desperately not to be a schoolgirl armed with a wet lettuce...

Well MikeF

Where are your transitionals?

There are an estimated 1 billion fossils..

Should be an easy task

Lets start with transitionals for ...er...let's say.. T rex

There are 32 specimens of which 12 are nearly complete

So, what's the story.....?
Give him time to get to google...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122618 Mar 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How about demonstrating one mutation that could lead to the evolution of a light sensitive spot?
Why?

We've demonstrated positive mutations to you before and all you do is call it "atheism".

You don't address it.

You don't even address why it "must" be atheistic (since it makes no theological claims).

You don't even address the fact that theists also accept it.

And you don't even address the fact that if your objection is that evidence is somehow "atheistic" then your alternative is religious pseudo-science which renders all your arguments moot.

In short you're a typical fundie liar for Jesus.

So seriously bub. What the frak is the point?(shrug)
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#122619 Mar 9, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonest?.... Peking Man, Peltdown Man, Nabraska Man, Lucy, Stanley Miller experiment, Ida, and on and on... Yeah tell us all about whose dishonest...
Ok let's pick one - what was dishonest about miller ?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#122620 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
Oh
Just this thing called erosion
Hermit shale is described as highly erodible
Why couldn't the erosion be uniform?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122621 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I am referring to the extensive STRAIGHT line between these layers.
So what? Why do you seem to think that is significant in any way?

Here is an erosional surface, does it look straight to you:

http://www.google.com/imgres...
defender

Tucker, GA

#122622 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>Here's MikeF trying desperately not to be a schoolgirl armed with a wet lettuce...

Well MikeF

Where are your transitionals?

There are an estimated 1 billion fossils..

Should be an easy task

Lets start with transitionals for ...er...let's say.. T rex

There are 32 specimens of which 12 are nearly complete

So, what's the story.....?
There are no transitional fossils... Zero
Unless of course you count the bone fragments on Talkorigins that they so kindly have sketch artist to place the parts where they need them... But real transitional fossils... Uh.. No...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122623 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution implies that everything made itself
False.
Russell wrote:
Genesis 1:1
snipped preaching
(yawn)
Russell wrote:
That is what we see in nature
Life begetting life
Or chemistry begetting chemistry.

However this was not the case with God, since:

God did not create everything via natural chemical reproductive processes but rather did things artificially.

God is not a biochemical lifeform.

Being eternal, life did not beget the life of God.

Being in heaven, God is dead anyway.
Russell wrote:
No transitionals.
False.
Russell wrote:
Where is the evidence that evolution happened?
Still unaddressed from page 1 of the other thread.
defender

Tucker, GA

#122624 Mar 9, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>defender wrote, "I'll never understand why the evolutionist use this argument because it just proves all the more that they have no true time line of which to measure..."

You're just not keeping up, Scooter.
Well than enlighten me then oh wise one... Once again nothing from you...
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#122625 Mar 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bozo. I should have realized you'd only look at the pictures.
"Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Eohippus to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized."
ibid
Dear MikeF
Read correctly what that means is ..

"WE DON'T KNOW SQUAT!

The fossils don't match up

We are hypothesizing

We have only weak evidence

Therefore we do the best we can"


The horse series has AT LEAST two evolutionary gaps

a) The first gap occurs at Epihippus

Only sparse fossil pieces have been found of this animal

And they resemble those of the earlier Orohippus, Eohippus and other formerly-identified hyracotherid species

b) The second gap occurs in or just after the group Parahippus

The early Parahippus species are supposed to resemble Miohippus and Mesohippus while the latter ones are supposed to look like Merychippus

..... this is only partly supported by the fossil findings.....

Furthermore, the fossil material for Parahippus is incomplete.

AND It would probably be possible to classify the different parts of Parahippus as belonging to two different animals—Miohippus and Merychippus.

This latter result can also be inferred by the work of Cavanaugh et al.,

....as Parahippus showed similarities to 14 of 18 species of horses.

Therefore, the “Parahippus” step in the horse series appears to be a mixed up group of unrelated fossils.

In 1992, the genus Hyracotherium was reclassified as FIVE animals belonging to different families of which only one group was regarded as having anything to do with horses.

More recent research has reclassified these animals into TEN different genera and at least three families.......
........ of which many are not supposed to have anything to do with the horse series but are similar to e.g. tapirs (family Tapiromorpha).

One Hyracotherium species (angustidens) has been renamed Eohippus, and all the other Hyracotherium species except one, have been given new genus names.

The single animal still retaining the name Hyracotherium (leporinum) is NO LONGER in the horse series but is regarded as belonging next to the Palaeotheriidae.......

.... which resemble tapirs and rhinoceros.

How about the NON-EVOLUTION of horses?

http://creation.com/the-non-evolution-of-the-...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122626 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because Prof McIntosh is a creationist....with the non-disputable, top of the range science credentials....and who openly loves the Lord.....
Is no reason to hate him....
He's not a liar...
That is mere wishful thinking on your part
Argumentum ad hominem.....since you have nothing else...
How do you reckon ENCODE is going?
Sorry, but the guy openly admitted his pseudo-scientific bias on camera. His does a bit of science in his day job to pay the bills. Then in his free time he argues against science. He is a YEC after all.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122627 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have my sympathy on this one Dude
Its easy not to believe in something you cant see
Its like Dawkins says
I notice you went on a completely irrelevant tangent there rather than address my post.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122628 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who believes that God created....
Is a liar...
That's the default position set in granite
No arguments
Shrug
Nope, not the default argument.

It's just that you fundies lie.(shrug)

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Regolith Based Li... 67,287
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 16 min King Carrot 925
What does the theory of evolution state? 33 min pshun2404 173
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr pshun2404 374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,677
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Dogen 221,264
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,537
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr wondering 160,962
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 19 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web