Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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.

One way or another

United States

#123751 Mar 16, 2013
After years here, not one of the Evo morons has ever had even one new thought between them. They are products of gov schools, where they were taught nothing more than cut and paste.

Ya know how some crazy people like dogen don't realize how crazy they are, well, its the same for stupid people, they don't realize how stupid they are. That's all the Evo morons.

Talking to them is a complete waste of time.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123752 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<snipped because its boll&$ks>

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

<snipped because its boll&$ks>

.
Let me condense my TOTAL REBUTTAL of your new science as you keep ignoring it anyway.

You are a Moron
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#123753 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection.
You have no counter, I get that.
Now, did you do your homework? Because understanding my posts is predicated on you understanding basic science.
Now, to review, the MODERN species of coelacanth do NOT exist in the fossil record.
The species, genus, families and orders of coelacanths in the fossil record do NOT exist now.
What does that tell you? Oh, never mind that. What would that tell a rational human being?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to get more educated on this subject before speaking on it. At least rusty does not make as many silly mistakes as this.
coelacanth IS a transitional (except for the ones that went extinct without leaving a lineage).
It is not considered to be a MAJOR transitional.
Also, please learn the following words and their meaning in biology.
Species
Genus
Family
Order
Transitional
Major-Transitional.
Thanks for your support.
Coelacanth, the living fish:

"Coelacanth (pron.:/&#712;si&#720; l&#601;kæn&#952;/) is a rare order of fish that includes two extant species: West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis)."

Coelacanth, the fossil"

"According to genetic analysis of current species, the divergence of coelacanths, lungfish,and tetrapods is thought to have occurred 390 million years ago.[5] Coelacanths were thought to have undergone extinction 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. The first recorded coelacanth fossil was found in Australia and was of a coelacanth jaw that dated back 360 million years, named Eoachtinistia foreyi."

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

It's a "Lazarus taxon"! LOL!

"In paleontology, a Lazarus taxon (plural taxa) is a taxon that disappears for one or more periods from the fossil record, only to appear again later. The term refers to the account in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead."

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

How appropriate!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#123754 Mar 16, 2013
"The discovery of a species still living, when they were believed to have gone extinct 65 million years previously, makes the coelacanth the best-known example of a Lazarus taxon, an evolutionary line that seems to have disappeared from the fossil record only to reappear much later."

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

This is too funny! LOL!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#123755 Mar 16, 2013
The fossil record is the result of numerous creatures being buried quickly in mud, as in a world-wide catastrophic flood 4,500 years ago, and reflects the *order of burial* in that event, NOT the order of "macroevolution". Coelacanth, and so many other "living fossils" demonstrates that fact so clearly.
defender

United States

#123756 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>*** HTS CONFESSES MACROEVOLUTION!!!***



Where are you getting these bedtime stories from? Coelacanth were never seriously considered to be a major transitional, at least not for very long.

Coelacanth is proof of evolution. NONE of the existing GENUS of Latimeria (modern Coelacanth) exist in the fossil record.

Coelacanth seems to have evolved from Macropoma or Macropomoides from the mid to late cretaceous. All of those species and families and ORDERS have died out. So, if you ADMIT that the modern coelacanth is related to the coelacanths in the fossil record you are confessing MACROEVOLUTION in a very large way.

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

So you have CONFESSED MACROEVOLUTION, but are denying that transitionals exist. Weird.
Coelacanth was indeed considered a major missing link until it showed up without any legs... Lie bag...
More of the same from the wack job... "It puts the lotion in the basket"
Get help... There's still time to turn it around bro...

“i win - je gagne”

Since: Mar 13

Brittany Bretagne

#123757 Mar 16, 2013
yes
defender

United States

#123758 Mar 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for you to explain how even though your spin hypothesis suggests that cells in the body should rotate to match the rotation of the earth......

That is NOT what we observe.

Until you respond rationally to questions you are worthless as far as a discussion goes.
Mugwump: Always wanting someone to explain something to him...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123759 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Mugwump: Always wanting someone to explain something to him...
So just to clarify, you AGREE with jimbos new science that say the cells of the body spin in line with the rotation of the earth?

I had a lot of respect previously for the way you presented your arguments backed up by scientific evidence - but now I have to question my assumptions about your intellect.
One way or another

United States

#123760 Mar 16, 2013
The evo morons love to change what's written, to serve their deceit.
LowellGuy

United States

#123761 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Spin dizzy earth
Science by Jim Ryan
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 amount of 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.
When the person is spun around, how much more gravitational attraction do they exert? If the answer is anything other than zero, demonstrate it. If it's zero, you admit your hypothesis to be bullshit. Which is it, Jim?
LowellGuy

United States

#123762 Mar 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The fossil record is the result of numerous creatures being buried quickly in mud, as in a world-wide catastrophic flood 4,500 years ago, and reflects the *order of burial* in that event, NOT the order of "macroevolution". Coelacanth, and so many other "living fossils" demonstrates that fact so clearly.
Odd, then, that the earliest bird fossils only appear after the appearance of theropod dinosaurs. Not even one bird fossil appears earlier. Likewise, the earliest land tetrapods only ever appear later than fish. And, mammals only later than synapsids. And, humans only after lemur-like mammals. And, horses only after eohippus. And, rhinos only after ceratopsians. How would a flood, for which there is no evidence and which would have necessarily eradicated all organisms with brains, and most without, manage to sort things so it just happened to follow the patterns predicted by evolutionary theory?
One way or another

United States

#123763 Mar 16, 2013
The Evo morons love to change word and meaning. They have too, because deceit and cut and paste are all they have. Lol

Thanks for proving the above Evo morons.

They care nothing for science.

Jealousy rules them, as the children they choose to be.

Not one of them in all the years they have been here, has ever contributed one new thought to science.
One way or another

United States

#123764 Mar 16, 2013
Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.


Gosh, I bet considering the reversal of the above was above their pay grade. Lol.

Morons
One way or another

United States

#123765 Mar 16, 2013
former CIA Director, William Casey, “We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
One way or another

United States

#123766 Mar 16, 2013
Seeing back in time

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.

Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.

That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.

former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

“In God we trust”

Level 7

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#123767 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons love to change word and meaning. They have too, because deceit and cut and paste are all they have. Lol
Thanks for proving the above Evo morons.
They care nothing for science.
Jealousy rules them, as the children they choose to be.
Not one of them in all the years they have been here, has ever contributed one new thought to science.
Evolution isn't the only science you know.
One way or another

United States

#123768 Mar 16, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution isn't the only science you know.
Here's something for you.

The science of running by Jim Ryan.

Yes, I used to run 10 miles a day for about 2 years. For whatever reason, I started counting a cadence in my head, that matched the cadence of my footfalls and my breathing, which synced body and mind, helping me to get into a trance like state, allowing me to run mile after mile without stress and the last mile I could run almost flat out.

I know they teach different things today, but give my method a try, I think you'll like it. By the way, keep your eyes focused just in front of you, on the ground.

The cadence in running I used to use was, "one two three one", " one two three two", "one two three three", and keep going.

It's a 4 count breathing in and then a 4 count breathing out.

Happy running.
One way or another

United States

#123769 Mar 16, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution isn't the only science you know.
By the way, I see evolution as a lie.
defender

United States

#123770 Mar 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>Odd, then, that the earliest bird fossils only appear after the appearance of theropod dinosaurs. Not even one bird fossil appears earlier. Likewise, the earliest land tetrapods only ever appear later than fish. And, mammals only later than synapsids. And, humans only after lemur-like mammals. And, horses only after eohippus. And, rhinos only after ceratopsians. How would a flood, for which there is no evidence and which would have necessarily eradicated all organisms with brains, and most without, manage to sort things so it just happened to follow the patterns predicted by evolutionary theory?
Ahh the evolutionist tree of lie as presented by Talkorigins ....
First of all one could carbon date A year dead chicken back 200 million years ago... And you assume (speculate) that no bird fossils exist before theropod dinosaurs... Umm let's see if I can use one of your arguments here -"Well just cause we haven't got all the answers yet doesn't mean it isn't true (abiogenesis)...lol
And how about those wings bud?... Just when did your magical god Natural Selection decide that fowl shall take flight? By what intelligence or need?
How many millions of years of packing around those developing stubs did NS see it fit for the good of the species while all along hindering it's movement to predators?
Logic... It's what's for dinner...

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) 2 hr renee 31,254
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 150,951
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 13,263
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 hr ChristineM 197,307
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... Wed bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web