Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180363 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123143 Mar 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a she you couldn't show the small changes in the same lineage, which would definitively prove evolution, causing millions to defect from religion, but you keep trying idiot. Lol

Evolution has been definitively proved already. There was not a mass exodus from religion.

Religion tended to either ignore the fact or to pretend it never happened.
One way or another

United States

#123144 Mar 11, 2013
Ask any person to spin around 30 times and see what happens and they spin on their feet at maybe 3 miles an hour.

Then all we need do is consider how the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in a circle and yet, none show signs of dizziness or sickness from such.

The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.

Any extra spin creates dizziness at the least, implying a pretty delicate balance, but hey, why don't you or science or anyone give a better reason for such.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123145 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How are you going with the pollen in the Cambrian?

Not a problem.


Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.h...

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/discrim.htm

http://www.rae.org/pdf/pollen.pdf

Pollen has also been found in PRE-Cambrian strata.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123146 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you'll have better luck with this
Chadwick, A.V., 1981.‘Precambrian Pollen in the Grand Canyon—A Re-examination’. Origins 8(1): 7-12

This article begins with the line: "Creationists have often cited the presence of Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon as evidences against the validity of the geologic column. In this paper, the author examines this evidence for this claim, and does not find it to be credible."

And you might want to read this:
http://www.rae.org/pdf/pollen.pdf

Refuted again, eh?
One way or another

United States

#123147 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been definitively proved already. There was not a mass exodus from religion.
Religion tended to either ignore the fact or to pretend it never happened.
No, it hasn't. The heart and soul of evolution is gradualism, but out of a billion fossils, there shows no gradualism, the opposite of the scientific method, however, all can see the so called scientists and their dumb followers care nothing for the scientific method.

The scientists and your clique are morons.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123148 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Like this...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6yZ4fktcuNkXX
There can be all sorts in our ancestry...if only we keep the evo-faith
So you do want people to know that you are just a simpleton.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123149 Mar 11, 2013
His-truth wrote:
In his theory of evolution .. Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from .. For him .. the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity ... While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s .. it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell ... The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do ..
but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency. informing and directing the cell's process.
Signature in the Cell : DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design .. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
.. http://www.signatureinthecell.com/about-the-b... .. continue
Yes, he is an uneducated liar. The review starts, and not necessarily the book, starts by calling DNA a "digital code". That was all the further that I needed to read.

What a moron.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123150 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
The above post was referring to the Java man fraud, not unlike the ridiculous Lucy debacle.
Java Man was shown not to be a fraud. They have found several examples there.

Here is hint when it comes to frauds, they usually find only one example. If several examples are found by several separate parties you can be very sure it is not a fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man

You are somewhat correct. The first find was of a skull cap and a femur. There is no evidence that it was the same person. There is even a possibility that it could be two different species of man. That is not true of later finds:

Dubois' find was a very incomplete specimen, consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species.[1] A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist G. H. R. von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site"

And Home erectus has been found at many other sites around the world. Are you going to claim they are all frauds moron? Oh wait, you have.
Mugwump

UK

#123151 Mar 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
.
The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.
Yet we don't observe cells spinning so your implication is wrong don't you think?

And again, do you want to outline what you understand by the term 'spin' in relation to electrons?

Fancy answering either question ?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123152 Mar 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it hasn't. The heart and soul of evolution is gradualism, but out of a billion fossils, there shows no gradualism, the opposite of the scientific method, however, all can see the so called scientists and their dumb followers care nothing for the scientific method.
The scientists and your clique are morons.

So evolution is observed but it is not proven. You are weird.

Evolution is not predicated on gradualism. That is not even a prediction of evolution and never was.

Besides, you couldn't pick the scientific method out of a police lineup.

I bet you can't even pass this basic quiz about the scientific method.

http://facstaff.uww.edu/bhattacj/review_1_21....

And it is VERY basic.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#123153 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Java Man was shown not to be a fraud. They have found several examples there.
Here is hint when it comes to frauds, they usually find only one example. If several examples are found by several separate parties you can be very sure it is not a fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Man
You are somewhat correct. The first find was of a skull cap and a femur. There is no evidence that it was the same person. There is even a possibility that it could be two different species of man. That is not true of later finds:
Dubois' find was a very incomplete specimen, consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species.[1] A second, more complete specimen was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18 km to the north of Solo. This find, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist G. H. R. von Koenigswald in 1936. Many more finds have subsequently been made at the Sangiran site"
And Home erectus has been found at many other sites around the world. Are you going to claim they are all frauds moron? Oh wait, you have.
So now you have two skullcaps. What does that prove? Let's see some I retouched photos. Unlike you, I don't simply accept whatever BS is posted on talkorigins.

Are you familiar with the concept of genetic variability? Do you understand that the skulls of a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are a single species? Keep that in mind as you attempt to interpret fragments of fossils.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123154 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you have two skullcaps. What does that prove? Let's see some I retouched photos. Unlike you, I don't simply accept whatever BS is posted on talkorigins.
Are you familiar with the concept of genetic variability? Do you understand that the skulls of a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are a single species? Keep that in mind as you attempt to interpret fragments of fossils.
Wrong. Try again. The second skeleton was much more complete and several skeletons have been found since then.

Is see that you are still having that reading comprehension problem.

Your claim of fraud fell apart.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#123155 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
All people are born with no belief in god. The belief in a god is indoctrinated and is largely cultural.
Nope Stalin never rejected his religion, that rejection is assumed by christians who tend to lie a lot when something upsets their sensibilities.
Your atheistic opinions are irrelevant.
And what's this nonsense about Stalin not being an atheist?
Even Dawkins, your esteemed hero, admitted on Bill O'Reilly that Stalin was unquestionably an atheist.

Christine, do you enjoy wallowing in base ignorance?
Do you enjoy telling bald-faced lies?
Do you have the intellectually honesty to answer the question that SZ, Dogen, the Dude, and other atheist hacks have heretofore refused to answer? Why is it wrong to lie? Try answering the question without spewing religious bigotry.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123156 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your atheistic opinions are irrelevant.
And what's this nonsense about Stalin not being an atheist?
Even Dawkins, your esteemed hero, admitted on Bill O'Reilly that Stalin was unquestionably an atheist.
Christine, do you enjoy wallowing in base ignorance?
Do you enjoy telling bald-faced lies?
Do you have the intellectually honesty to answer the question that SZ, Dogen, the Dude, and other atheist hacks have heretofore refused to answer? Why is it wrong to lie? Try answering the question without spewing religious bigotry.
I know that logic is a very weak part of your abilities but Christine never said that Stalin was not an atheist. At least not in the part of her post in your quotation.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123157 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you have two skullcaps. What does that prove? Let's see some I retouched photos. Unlike you, I don't simply accept whatever BS is posted on talkorigins.
Are you familiar with the concept of genetic variability? Do you understand that the skulls of a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua are a single species? Keep that in mind as you attempt to interpret fragments of fossils.

You have no idea how many human fossils have been found. We have fossils from at least 6,000 individuals. Some only fragments, some nearly complete.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...

BTW, St. Bernard and Chihuahua skulls look remarkably similar once the difference in scale is accounted for.

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

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

Englewood, CO

#123158 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Try again. The second skeleton was much more complete and several skeletons have been found since then.
Is see that you are still having that reading comprehension problem.
Your claim of fraud fell apart.
Let's see the photo, SZ... or are you too embarrassed to post it?...or have you even looked at it?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123159 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your atheistic opinions are irrelevant.
And what's this nonsense about Stalin not being an atheist?
Even Dawkins, your esteemed hero, admitted on Bill O'Reilly that Stalin was unquestionably an atheist.
Christine, do you enjoy wallowing in base ignorance?
Do you enjoy telling bald-faced lies?
Do you have the intellectually honesty to answer the question that SZ, Dogen, the Dude, and other atheist hacks have heretofore refused to answer? Why is it wrong to lie? Try answering the question without spewing religious bigotry.

http://www.examiner.com/article/refuting-the-...

Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church after he was in power.

Odd thing for an atheist to do.

His problem was not his theism, or lack thereof, but the fact that he was a megalomaniac.
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123160 Mar 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has been definitively proved already. There was not a mass exodus from religion.

Religion tended to either ignore the fact or to pretend it never happened.
Evolution has in no way been proven.. Not even close...
The theory of evolution is every bit a religion as Christianly or Islam....
It's only the kool aid drinking idiot lead by the grant seeking professors and agenda pushing leftist nut jobs that buy into the foolishness that science does not support...
The chemistry isn't there, the links between species are no where to be found ( unless you tune into the lie bag Talkorigins that is )
The broken model falls to failure on all fronts....
Not really much different that any other cult fueled by wild speculation, wishful thinking and desperate hope...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123161 Mar 11, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has in no way been proven.. Not even close...

By "evolution" are you referring to the Theory of Evolution? If so then you are literally correct. Theories are never proven.

If you are talking about the observed fact of evolution (upon which the theory is based and sets out to explain) then obviously you are wrong.

defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution is every bit a religion as Christianly or Islam....

No. A theory, in science, is an explanation of observed data. A successful theory makes predictions which are confirmed upon future data.

A religion is:
"Definition of RELIGION
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rel...

I hope that is fairly clear.

defender wrote:
<quoted text> It's only the kool aid drinking idiot lead by the grant seeking professors and agenda pushing leftist nut jobs that buy into the foolishness that science does not support...


I rarely drink kool-aid, but I really enjoy diet Mountain Dew.

As to the rest of your statement it does not have much to do with reality so am at a loss as to how to respond to it.

Perhaps this will do:

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.”
&#8213; Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
defender wrote:
<quoted text> The chemistry isn't there, the links between species are no where to be found ( unless you tune into the lie bag Talkorigins that is )

Humm..... life IS chemistry, so the chemistry MUST be there. We are chemistry. So that is a moot point.

And since there ARE links between species that too seems to be moot.

Talkorigins is a respectable reference site. It bases what is on the site on what the corresponding research demonstrates. It DOES have an agenda, but all sites do. But TO just collects the information, it is not the source of facts about evolution. That comes from primary research which follows the scientific method.
defender wrote:
<quoted text> The broken model falls to failure on all fronts....
Not really much different that any other cult fueled by wild speculation, wishful thinking and desperate hope...

You seem to know something about cults "fueled by wild speculation, wishful thinking and desperate hope......".

Evolution, however is a rather obvious and observable fact and the Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful, apex, theories in the history of science. It is a grand unifying theory with multiple lines of independent evidence from a multitude of different fields.

You would do much better arguing against gravity. After all, none of the theories of gravity are fully mature or universal. Maybe some day. But for now we can be happy knowing that gravity IS true, even if it is not possible or cannot be fully explained with a theoretical framework.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123162 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Let's see the photo, SZ... or are you too embarrassed to post it?...or have you even looked at it?
Here is an article that has a picture of the first skull cap and the skull of another Homo erectus sample "Turkana Boy". Your late hero Gish could not decide if this was an ape or a man:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java1500...

And another article on Java Man, Peking Man and Turkana Boy, all homo erectus:

http://factsanddetails.com/world.php...

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 positronium 87,416
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 54 min marksman11 166,347
What's your religion? 14 hr Frank 770
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 14 hr Tom Honda 1,825
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 16 hr Dogen 5,815
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web