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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123180 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
For starters, let's see you validate the age of 1.6 million years for Turkana Boy. Where did that number come from? Did you pull it out of a hat? No... you blindly swallowed whatever kool-aid was thrown at you by talkorigins.
We can discuss that fallacy behind all of the conclusions of Turkana Boy as soon as you tell me what scientific evidence there is to confirm that he is 1.6 million years old.
Nope, don't need to. Whenever you get too stupid in your requests or demands I will simply point out that you have not learned what scientific evidence is yet.

Remember I post evidence at my leisure until you do so.

We do not blindly follow anything, that is why so many of us are not Christians anymore. You are projecting your blind belief onto others.

If you really want more evidence you will have to earn it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123181 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try ad nauseum to discredit me. You cannot show any scientific evidence to validate your religion that man evolved from a worm.
So are you still worshiping a block of wood?

Two faced hypocrite.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123182 Mar 11, 2013
I did strike a nerve with my cross observation.

Notice how both of our present creatards had a cow from that post.

I guess the truth hurts.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#123183 Mar 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science claims to know much, even though it can't be seen, like electrons--even though science now claims it can see electrons, electron spin and dark matter. However, it seems scientists in evolution, arrange hypothesis to match what can't be seen.
Its like circumstantial evidence. I did the same with spinning motion on humans and gave reason why we aren't dizzy and sick from spinning at 1,000 milled an hour. Our electrons are spinning to match the spin of the earth.
If you have another idea, lets hear it.
Wow, you are the greatest scientist of all time!

Hint: that was sarcasm.
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#123184 Mar 11, 2013
That strange
My post #123120 is missing...

It was a re-post since the previous attempt was also missing...?

Another attempt seems futile.....but here goes....

----------
My post #122104---> missing

Rather odd...

Good thing I keep some records
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Lucy also shows considerable differences from other apes in the hominid direction.
So when the "renowned paleoanthropologist", concedes that this creature’s features are ‘much more ape-like than those of later taxa that are rightly included in our own genus, Homo.
He is merely stating EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT for an ape/hominid intermediate still closer to the ape side than the human.
A later australopith, Sediba, shows progressively more hominid and less ape features. And onto habilis. Then erectus. Then heidelburgensis, then archaic sapiens...
You cannot have it both ways, claiming there are no intermediates and then pretending that an early intermediate does not count precisely because we have NARROWED THE GAPS to virtually zero in the ape-hominid continuum by continuing fossil finds! Of COURSE a creature near the ape end of that continuum will have MORE ape features. Duh!!!
"Separate and distinct" - DEBUNKED!
Its not quite as nice and tidy as that

We've been through all this type of media hype before

Evo-tards have had to eat crow many times...

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature ...

And whatever happened to Ardi?

Wasn't she a hot favourite in the evo-yarn spinning?

An ape with monkey features?

----------

Please see the last column on the second page of this pdf--->

http://morethebook.org/dominantanimal.org/wp -...

----------
Here's the kicker--->

Humans differ from other animals in many aspects of anatomy, physiology, and behaviour; however, the genotypic basis of most human-specific traits remains unknown.

"Recent whole-genome comparisons have made it possible to identify genes with elevated rates of amino acid change or divergent expression in humans, and non-coding sequences with accelerated base pair changes.

"Regulatory alterations may be particularly likely to produce phenotypic effects while preserving viability, and are known to underlie interesting evolutionary differences in other species. Here we identify molecular events particularly likely to produce significant regulatory changes in humans: complete deletion of sequences otherwise highly conserved between chimpanzees and other mammals.

"We confirm 510 such deletions in humans, which fall almost exclusively in non-coding regions and are enriched near genes involved in steroid hormone signalling and neural function. "

---McLean, et al., Nature, 10 March 2011,“Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits”, pages 216–219

AND especially for you, SZ
Since you're exhausted and can't be bothered

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n73 ...

Bear in mind-->
Humans and chimps DID NOT share a common ancestor

So all this is quite redundant anyway

And the conclusions are meaningless

----------
CONT in PART 2-->
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#123186 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I did strike a nerve with my cross observation.
Notice how both of our present creatards had a cow from that post.
I guess the truth hurts.
You are one desperate evo-tard...

Hey listen Bud...

There's this bridge in Sydney...

Real nice an' all

....
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123187 Mar 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science claims to know much, even though it can't be seen, like electrons--even though science now claims it can see electrons, electron spin and dark matter. However, it seems scientists in evolution, arrange hypothesis to match what can't be seen.
Its like circumstantial evidence. I did the same with spinning motion on humans and gave reason why we aren't dizzy and sick from spinning at 1,000 milled an hour. Our electrons are spinning to match the spin of the earth.
If you have another idea, lets hear it.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ?
Any answers yet?
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#123188 Mar 11, 2013
Is my post # 123184 visible?

C'mon SZ...stop mucking around and let me know

I have tried posting this twice already

This was a 3rd attempt
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123189 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Something else that's not there is the math. I've repeatedly challenged these morons for mathematical proof of the plausibility of any evolutionary mechanism. All I get in return are idiotic bigoted slurs.

Talkorigins is one of tipping points that convinced me of the fallacy of evolution. Anyone who can't see what a depository of atheist BS it is is incredibly naieve and is certainly a stranger to the scientific method.
True...
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123190 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: "I've lost the argument and now must resort to desperate attempts to disprove ID."
Lol.. True again...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123191 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A religion does not require a belief in God. Example: Buddhism.
Evolution fulfills all criteria for a religion. You worship natural selection, and Chuck Darwin and Dick Dawkins are your high priests.


I'm sorry, but that WAS the definition from a valid source. Your emotional rants are simply irrational.

But your example of Buddhism is an interesting one. Many (myself included) do not consider Buddhism to be a religion at all.

As you indicate there is no belief in (nor denial of) a god.
Also, there is no belief system nor dogma in Buddhism. Nor is there religious devotion.

There is a lot of similarities between Buddhism and Science. As Einstein summed up:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123192 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>You really are a desperate eve-tard
They are defenders of the faith of Darwinism...
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123193 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>For starters, let's see you validate the age of 1.6 million years for Turkana Boy. Where did that number come from? Did you pull it out of a hat? No... you blindly swallowed whatever kool-aid was thrown at you by talkorigins.
We can discuss that fallacy behind all of the conclusions of Turkana Boy as soon as you tell me what scientific evidence there is to confirm that he is 1.6 million years old.
Could have been a cat that died 75 years ago for all they know...
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123194 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>Where has evolution been observed?
You are unable to show any ancestors for fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, indeed....

There is no explanation for the Cambrian or Ediacaran explosions

In fact they are named explosions due to the 'sudden' appearance of ALL creatures in the fossil record
Just go to Talkorigins !! They got it all sketched out from tiny bone fragments!! Lol... And don't forget your bullshit boots ... You'll need em...
defender

Brodhead, KY

#123195 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, your poor reading comprehension strikes.

I pointed out that you don't worship a chunk of wood. We don't worship Darwin.

Why can't creatards understand clear cut analogies?
Why can't evolutionist understand science?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123196 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Something else that's not there is the math. I've repeatedly challenged these morons for mathematical proof of the plausibility of any evolutionary mechanism. All I get in return are idiotic bigoted slurs.

And we have covered this, have we not. The odds of evolution occurring are exactly 100%. The odds of Hitler losing WW2 are exactly the same; 100%.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Talkorigins is one of tipping points that convinced me of the fallacy of evolution. Anyone who can't see what a depository of atheist BS it is is incredibly naieve and is certainly a stranger to the scientific method.

No one is more of a stranger of the scientific method than yourself. I cannot count all the times you have spewed ignorance that should never come out of the brain of an average 10th grader who has passed H.S. level biology.

Further, TO takes no side on the issue of atheism. It only presents the facts of biological evolution in a concise and readable form, but based upon the published research.

Is it biased toward science and against creationism? Of course. It is guilty of that. It is telling that it inspires such fear and hatred in you. But that it "convinced me of the fallacy of evolution" is a lie. You received your religious programming long before TO was ever put on a website.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123197 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: "I've lost the argument and now must resort to desperate attempts to disprove ID."

Then you are ABLE to provide SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for creationism?

Please proceed.

Assuming you are not able to do so (not much of an assumption), ID has already been disproved. That is why most people are openly advocating creationism again (and dropping the ID pretense).

Remember, ID has no evidence. Attempts to support ID scientifically and logically have all met with disaster.


Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only your totally uneducated opinion.
And to date there is no scientific evidence for creation.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123198 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I do not worship a chunk of wood. Why do you presume to know anything about my religious faith? Why can you not avoid the temptation to constantly interject religion into a "scientific" discussion?
Your strawman arguments are transparent.

LOL. If you had read for CONTENT instead of making believe what you think you read, you would have come across this.


Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Making those claims is as stupid as a non-Christian claiming that you guys worship a chunk of wood.
In fact there is much more evidence that Christians worship a chunk of wood than there is that evolutionists worship Darwin.
Go to almost any church and you will see chunks of wood up on the wall. And images of chunks of wood almost everywhere. In fact it is hard to find a Christian publication anywhere that does not have an image of some sort of a chunk of wood.
So why do you worship this chunk of wood? Rumor has it that you think it has the magical ability to kill gods.


Bells should have gone off after the very first sentence.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123199 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
For starters, let's see you validate the age of 1.6 million years for Turkana Boy. Where did that number come from? Did you pull it out of a hat? No... you blindly swallowed whatever kool-aid was thrown at you by talkorigins.
We can discuss that fallacy behind all of the conclusions of Turkana Boy as soon as you tell me what scientific evidence there is to confirm that he is 1.6 million years old.


http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Scientific_metho...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

What is the nature of your amateurish incredulity?

Okay, your up. What is YOUR evidence. LOL!!!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#123200 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try ad nauseum to discredit me. You cannot show any scientific evidence to validate your religion that man evolved from a worm.

You can try ad nauseum to discredit science. You cannot show any scientific evidence to validate your religion that man didn't evolve from a worm.

BTW, Humans did not evolve from worm, per se.

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
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 28 min Zog Has-fallen 51
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 35 min ChristineM 164,954
Creationism is a Fantasy 43 min Zog Has-fallen 7
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr Dogen 3,302
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 83,943
Time 14 hr Beagle 3
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
More from around the web