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

#123771 Mar 16, 2013
This whole piece can be refuted so easily, that a child must have written it.

http://mb-soft.com/public/tecto3.html

Plate tectonics, what a joke.

Continental drift, another joke by scientists.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#123772 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, I see evolution as a lie.
Of course you do.

I'd be disappointed if you DIDN'T see evolution as a lie.
defender

United States

#123773 Mar 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you do.

I'd be disappointed if you DIDN'T see evolution as a lie.
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....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123774 Mar 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge.

How so?

Seem like you are just avoiding the issue.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Between what was before and what comes after.
What does a bridge do?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123775 Mar 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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!


So you acknowledged macroevolution.

That is all I was going for.

Thanks for being the second creotard to jump on board.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123776 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!

Are modern coelacanths the same genus, species, family as modern coelacanths?

Do modern coelacanths found in the fossil record?

So, would the divergence of a modern coelacanth from "primitive" ancestors not count as MACROEVOLUTION, no matter who is doing the determination?

Do, does even acknowledging the existence of modern coelacanths put the whole notion of creationism on notice?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123777 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
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 see you were unable to address my post.


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, 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.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123778 Mar 16, 2013
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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123779 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
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...

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.

“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?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Scout 11,197
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 57 min DanFromSmithville 195,249
Ribose can be produced in space 1 hr DanFromSmithville 3
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 14,553
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Brian_G 29,396
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Don Barros Serrano 150,551
Cheap Kitchen Units UK 15 hr jojoyus 1
More from around the web