Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179619 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#123780 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is faith... A shaky model that some believe as truth and that's fine... It's the pushing of evolution as scientific truth on others where problems arise... Mutation does occur!!! Yes!!... But it has never .. Never mind you... Been proven to change one spices into another ... That's the heart of the issue... I find it funny that every spices except humans have adapted to the elements in which the live... By evolution standards we should all have green skin and absorb sunlight for food by now... But yet we still need food clothing and shelter to survive...
There are hundreds of arguments against evolution... Yet you buy into it... That is faith....
Wow. The ignorance displayed above is glaring.

You can't even spell 'species' correctly, yet you want to lecture us on science issues?

Get an education, Skippy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123781 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is faith.

This is false. This is a psychological defense mechanism you are evoking when you say this. Can you name that defense mechanism?

Evolution is part of biology. It is supported by every major field of science either directly or indirectly. Look it up.

defender wrote:
<quoted text>...It's the pushing of evolution as scientific truth on others where problems arise.

Evolution IS a fact. It is an observable fact.
The THEORY of evolution is NOT a fact. Please learn the difference.
www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.htm...

defender wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Mutation does occur!!! Yes!!... But it has never .. Never mind you... Been proven to change one spices into another

Nor has such been claimed. Where do you get the idea that ANYONE thinks it has????

defender wrote:
<quoted text> ... That's the heart of the issue..

Then there is no issue except in your imagination.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>. I find it funny that every spices except humans have adapted to the elements in which the live.

Say what? Humans, and our predecessors, have been one of the most rapidly evolving populations on the planet for the last several million years!!

Honestly, where do you get this stuff?

defender wrote:
<quoted text> By evolution standards we should all have green skin and absorb sunlight for food by now... But yet we still need food clothing and shelter to survive...

that's evolution for you. Typical.

defender wrote:
<quoted text> There are hundreds of arguments against evolution... Yet you buy into it... That is faith....

There are probably THOUSANDS of bad arguments against evolution. If I provided you will a million bad arguments against you existing would you believe me? Or would you disappear in a poof.

Argumentation can NEVER refute science.

Do you need me to repeat the last sentence?

Okay, here you go - Argumentation can NEVER refute science. EVER!

Only science can refute science. Nothing else has EVER refuted science. Not philosophy, not religion, not psychotic arguments.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#123782 Mar 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"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!
So all those species of Coelacanth which lived in shallow seas and thus left findable fossils, became extinct, whilst some species which lived in deep seas and thus didn't leave findable fossils still exist.

And the problem is?
defender

United States

#123783 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Let me repeat the new portion of the last post (for emphasis)

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

So, now we have a modern form that does not appear in the fossil record.

It is not the same species as historic coelacanth.

It is not the same family as historic coelacanth.

It is not the same genus as historic coelacanth.

So,.... the difference between modern and historic coelacanth requires......

Requires.....

[wait for it].....

MACROEVOLUTION.
Stupidly abounds!!! Yeah the ancient coelacanth could in no way be related at all cause it sprouted legs and went on to swing in the trees.... You ouse of ignorance...
defender

United States

#123784 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Sort of a shotgun approach. Most of it is clearly wrong, so I will just respond to what suits me.

Abiogenesis requires only two assumptions.
1. That life once did not exist.
2. That it exists now.

BOTH of these assumptions are well supported.

BOTH of these assumptions are acceptable to both science and creationism.

I know the scientific term "abiogenesis" seems to ruffle the feathers of creationists.

The synonym 'biopoiesis', however, is even worse for creationists.
Lmfao!!! Keep going bud you're on a roll....
defender

United States

#123785 Mar 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. The ignorance displayed above is glaring.

You can't even spell 'species' correctly, yet you want to lecture us on science issues?

Get an education, Skippy.
Sorry honey typing on an iPhone with fat fingers isn't so easy..... Do you have ANY science issues?
defender

United States

#123786 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>This is false. This is a psychological defense mechanism you are evoking when you say this. Can you name that defense mechanism?

Evolution is part of biology. It is supported by every major field of science either directly or indirectly. Look it up.


defender wrote, "<quoted text>...It's the pushing of evolution as scientific truth on others where problems arise."


Evolution IS a fact. It is an observable fact.
The THEORY of evolution is NOT a fact. Please learn the difference.
www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.htm...


defender wrote, "<quoted text>
.. Mutation does occur!!! Yes!!... But it has never .. Never mind you... Been proven to change one spices into another "


Nor has such been claimed. Where do you get the idea that ANYONE thinks it has????


defender wrote, "<quoted text> ... That's the heart of the issue.."


Then there is no issue except in your imagination.

defender wrote, "<quoted text>. I find it funny that every spices except humans have adapted to the elements in which the live."


Say what? Humans, and our predecessors, have been one of the most rapidly evolving populations on the planet for the last several million years!!

Honestly, where do you get this stuff?


defender wrote, "<quoted text> By evolution standards we should all have green skin and absorb sunlight for food by now... But yet we still need food clothing and shelter to survive..."


that's evolution for you. Typical.


defender wrote, "<quoted text> There are hundreds of arguments against evolution... Yet you buy into it... That is faith.... "


There are probably THOUSANDS of bad arguments against evolution. If I provided you will a million bad arguments against you existing would you believe me? Or would you disappear in a poof.

Argumentation can NEVER refute science.

Do you need me to repeat the last sentence?

Okay, here you go - Argumentation can NEVER refute science. EVER!

Only science can refute science. Nothing else has EVER refuted science. Not philosophy, not religion, not psychotic arguments.
No one is trying to refute science but you evotards ... As of press time this morning evolution is still an unproven theory ... Unless something has happened since then you cannot prove any of it.... And from the looks of the arguments you guys have been putting forth not much has been reported in a great long time...
But hey keep bringing up your debunked walking fish and glued together remains... It's funny..
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123787 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text> Lmfao!!! Keep going bud you're on a roll....
So which of the assumption are you denying?

Let me repost Dogen's point so you haven't got an excuse to dodge (again)
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort of a shotgun approach. Most of it is clearly wrong, so I will just respond to what suits me.
Abiogenesis requires only two assumptions.
1. That life once did not exist.
2. That it exists now.
BOTH of these assumptions are well supported.
BOTH of these assumptions are acceptable to both science and creationism.
I know the scientific term "abiogenesis" seems to ruffle the feathers of creationists.
The synonym 'biopoiesis', however, is even worse for creationists.
You see it's not really useful to say 'nah,nah it's all wrong' and stick fingers in your ears - you need to actually say WHY it is wrong.

Just a suggestion
defender

United States

#123788 Mar 16, 2013
Those who push evolution sure have some balls for it has all the effects and none of the cause....
Yet on and on they plunder about without any proof beyond a shadow of doubt ...
They shout "prove to us a God made the earth, sun and moon! We say "go play in the traffic and He'll be with you soon..."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123789 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupidly abounds!!! Yeah the ancient coelacanth could in no way be related at all cause it sprouted legs and went on to swing in the trees.... You ouse of ignorance...

So you are going on record as admitting that I am right and the coelacanth if LIVING proof of evolution.

Are you sure that is what you want?

Are you sure you have nothing?

To bad
so sad.



Dogen wrote:
Let me repeat the new portion of the last post (for emphasis)

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

So, now we have a modern form that does not appear in the fossil record.

It is not the same species as historic coelacanth.

It is not the same family as historic coelacanth.

It is not the same genus as historic coelacanth.

So,.... the difference between modern and historic coelacanth requires......

Requires.....

[wait for it].....

MACROEVOLUTION.
defender

United States

#123790 Mar 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>So which of the assumption are you denying?

Let me repost Dogen's point so you haven't got an excuse to dodge (again)

Dogen wrote, "<quoted text>
Sort of a shotgun approach. Most of it is clearly wrong, so I will just respond to what suits me.
Abiogenesis requires only two assumptions.
1. That life once did not exist.
2. That it exists now.
BOTH of these assumptions are well supported.
BOTH of these assumptions are acceptable to both science and creationism.
I know the scientific term "abiogenesis" seems to ruffle the feathers of creationists.
The synonym 'biopoiesis', however, is even worse for creationists.
"

You see it's not really useful to say 'nah,nah it's all wrong' and stick fingers in your ears - you need to actually say WHY it is wrong.

Just a suggestion
When you can prove just one hypothesis of abiogenesis then it's game over... Got that? Just one..
All the kings horses and all the kings men have failed despite all the technology of today .... The silence is deafening.... Dream another dream... This dream is over.... M theory anyone?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123791 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text> Lmfao!!! Keep going bud you're on a roll....

Apparently as you can come up with nothing to dispute these obvious truths.


So, now I understand you are forced to accept abiogenesis.

That is not an issue as abiogenesis works for creation as well as evolution, at least in principle. Even though the science is a problem for you.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Sort of a shotgun approach. Most of it is clearly wrong, so I will just respond to what suits me.

Abiogenesis requires only two assumptions.
1. That life once did not exist.
2. That it exists now.

BOTH of these assumptions are well supported.

BOTH of these assumptions are acceptable to both science and creationism.

I know the scientific term "abiogenesis" seems to ruffle the feathers of creationists.

The synonym 'biopoiesis', however, is even worse for creationists.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123793 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
Those who push evolution sure have some balls for it has all the effects and none of the cause....
Yet on and on they plunder about without any proof beyond a shadow of doubt ...
They shout "prove to us a God made the earth, sun and moon! We say "go play in the traffic and He'll be with you soon..."

So..... in fewer words.... You got nothing.

Just philosophical rubbish and entrenched beliefs.


This is about the reality of science, not about theology. No one is trying to take your religious beliefs away from you. You just cannot push them on others and be indifferent to reality.

Evolution does not refute God or the Bible or the Koran ...... It may refute an overly literal interpretation of the bible, but that is not sciences fault.
defender

United States

#123794 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>So..... in fewer words.... You got nothing.

Just philosophical rubbish and entrenched beliefs.


This is about the reality of science, not about theology. No one is trying to take your religious beliefs away from you. You just cannot push them on others and be indifferent to reality.

Evolution does not refute God or the Bible or the Koran ...... It may refute an overly literal interpretation of the bible, but that is not sciences fault.
Can't you just enjoy some poetry?:)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123795 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can prove just one hypothesis of abiogenesis then it's game over... Got that? Just one..

WHICH of the following do you dispute?

1. That life once did not exist.
2. That it exists now.

That is all abiogenesis needs as proof.

Now, the mechanism of abiogenesis is not yet known for sure. If you want to believe it to be god, then that is fine..... for now.
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
All the kings horses and all the kings men have failed despite all the technology of today .... The silence is deafening.... Dream another dream... This dream is over.... M theory anyone?

Not sure what you are talking about but I am sure you don't either. Since no one has even tried to replicate an abiogenesis event yet (the research is on understanding, not on replication at least based on what is published so far).

There are papers on this subject coming out at an ever accelerating rate. Harvard medical has thrown down the proverbial gauntlet and implied they will do it first. But till it is done we don't really know who is ahead in the race.

There is nothing, in principle, about life that indicates it cannot be replicated, eventually, by humans. It is matter and energy.

What is your beef with M-Theory? The first letter throwing you off? It is an actual letter of the alphabet that falls between L and N. It can tutor you on this if you don't understand.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123796 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can prove just one hypothesis of abiogenesis then it's game over... Got that? Just one..
All the kings horses and all the kings men have failed despite all the technology of today .... The silence is deafening.... Dream another dream... This dream is over.... M theory anyone?
As expected - complete dodge

Can you answer the following question

which of the two assumptions outlined by Dogen do you disagree with

There is a HUGE logic fail in conflating abiogenisis with evolution and it is always disappointing that creationists use it as an argument - it is however predictable that they refuse to accept it is flawed argument.

So - gonna redeem yourself and answer the question about which assumption you disagree with?
defender

United States

#123797 Mar 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>As expected - complete dodge

Can you answer the following question

which of the two assumptions outlined by Dogen do you disagree with

There is a HUGE logic fail in conflating abiogenisis with evolution and it is always disappointing that creationists use it as an argument - it is however predictable that they refuse to accept it is flawed argument.

So - gonna redeem yourself and answer the question about which assumption you disagree with?
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories have failed... It's just not gonna happen... As more and more walk away in the hushed silence of defeat the few who hang on do so with anger and contempt
... I come and go on this thread about every six months and it's the same old song by the same old people... Nothing new...
Perhaps it's time to embrace this theory for what it is... Foolishness that has clearly been exposed.... I think its time to put our hard earned tax dollars to something that will yield some fruit...
Not wishful thinking unsupported by science...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123798 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories

Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.

Go back and read it again.

Then come back and make a sensible comment.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123799 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
We have bro... Time and time again... The chemical soup theories have failed... It's just not gonna happen... As more and more walk away in the hushed silence of defeat the few who hang on do so with anger and contempt
... I come and go on this thread about every six months and it's the same old song by the same old people... Nothing new...
Perhaps it's time to embrace this theory for what it is... Foolishness that has clearly been exposed.... I think its time to put our hard earned tax dollars to something that will yield some fruit...
Not wishful thinking unsupported by science...
Why are you incapable of answering a simple question?
defender

United States

#123800 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Stop. You have either not read or not understood my post.

Go back and read it again.

Then come back and make a sensible comment.
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?... Like I've said all the effects none of the cause... You call that science I say it's hogwash.... Science and speculation are NOT the same but you can't seen to grasp that...

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 30 min DanFromSmithville 197,532
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 49 min scientia potentia... 13,322
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr renee 31,373
Rome Viharo debunks evolution 2 hr Paul Porter1 2
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Paul Porter1 151,011
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
More from around the web