Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,178

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." Read more

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123742 Mar 15, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are at the very edge. The next step is sometimes referred to as "decompenstating".

I am old school. I prefer "psychotic break".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123743 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Transitional between what and what?

Between what was before and what comes after.

What does a bridge do?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123744 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ... You are a spineless atheist wallowing in the putrid stench of uncontrollable arrogance.

We truth tellers are always being told things like that. We get used to it. Like water off a ducks back.

If you can think you can actually RESPOND to any of my facts (preferably rationally) I will be here.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have facts bas ackward. I believe in God, but I do not need the fear of god to motivate me to do what is right.
Atheists have better morals than we Christians do because they do what is right without any requirement to do what is right.
Why are there a disproportional number of Christians in prison while atheists are underrepresented vs. their numbers in the general population?
And it is an observable fact that you flub up basic science every opportunity you get. You can't say two words about evolution without throwing in a straw-man.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123745 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Between what was before and what comes after.
What does a bridge do?
Nice dodge.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123746 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge.
Talking of dodging
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking of dogmatic statements are you willing to present any support for some of the statements you have made?
E.g.
You have SCIENTIFIC evidence for god
Or
African HIV is totally different disease than European
Or
Any of the HIV nonsense.
Don't worry, you don't need to respond - I can spot a creationist miles away :-
Spout nonsense - check
Get called on it - check
Dodge for a bit - check
Ultimately refuse to offer any support for nonsense - check
Get all childish and resort to name calling - check
Hey, whadya know - 5/5 on the creationist scale
One way or another

United States

#123747 Mar 15, 2013
Whatsamatteryou Russell, didja figure out that you are incapable of making a difference here?

Why do ya think that is Russell?
One way or another

United States

#123748 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogmatic statements do not qualify as science.
Do you really think that what you have to say, right or wrong, means anything to these morons?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123749 Mar 15, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think that what you have to say, right or wrong, means anything to these morons?
Still waiting
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.
One way or another

United States

#123750 Mar 16, 2013
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.
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

North Miami Beach, 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

North Miami Beach, 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

North Miami Beach, 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?

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) 1 min messianic114 155,356
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 7 min Paul Porter1 965
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min MikeF 18,073
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) 2 hr Dogen 3,397
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web