Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,462

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." Full Story
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123805 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Which of the two assumptions do you disagree with (will give you a hint - it can't be the second)

(If people are counting the next dodge will be four)
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123806 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
That was four (f@&k it offering 2-1 on getting to double figures)
One way or another

United States

#123807 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
That's the best they have.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#123808 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
By your argument that "we are here so it must hold true" is a lame duck.... Can I not say the same about God?........
You could IF you can first establish that your God exists.

In the other theories of abiogenesis, all the required elements are known to exist. Not so much for your God.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#123809 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah there's a few of them on this thread...
You should have looked at the article then admit you were wrong, because now you just look like a total fool. Mudskippers are the tiktaalik of a different lineage of vertebrates, from aquatic to terrestrial. Of course when they manage to evolve to actually walk like other terrestrial animals, and begin moving along the plains instead of the mud, you'll still be calling them mudskippers.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#123810 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same thing. Just like there is no difference between micropregnant and macropregnant. They are the same thing.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!!
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123811 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the best they have.
You got an answer as to why we DON'T observe cells spinning as you spin science suggests.

Nope - thought not - go back to your coloring book

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123812 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Further more your arguments are weak... Just listen to yourself: "So I guess you've got to admit microevolution"
"So your saying I was right"... Blah blah...
You sound like a fifth grader trading Yo Moma insults...

Sounds like you need to go back and read your OWN post.

Your argument implied acceptance of macroevolution. That is your own fault.

I notice you still have not disputed either of the premises of abiogenesis yet either.

Hummm. Wonder why.



If you cannot dispute a logical argument it SHOULD tell you something.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123814 Mar 16, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You could IF you can first establish that your God exists.
In the other theories of abiogenesis, all the required elements are known to exist. Not so much for your God.
All required elements for a space shuttle are known to exist.
That doesn't suggest that a space shuttle could self organize. So much for your god of evolution.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#123815 Mar 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish Evo morons seem to think cells moving at 1,000 mph in such a confined space will look like anything other than a blur.
Electrons are a blur.
Electrons are a blur.
Electrons spin at 1,000 mph, the same as the speed of the earth spinning. That's why we aren't constantly dizzy and throwing up.
Now what does science say about electrons,-- oh yea,----The physicists used a nanoscale wire to deliver a small amount of DC current to a magnet. All electrons possess angular momentum in the form of spin. Picture a spinning top. Angular momentum is what keeps that top upright, or pointed in a particular direction. Each electron within the magnet is like a spinning top, and in magnets, all of the electrons' spins are aligned in roughly the same way. Putting DC current into that group of electrons injects energy into the magnetic system, changing the spin of the local electrons in that immediate area. The spins of the electrons then precess, or "lean" like a top does when it is no longer upright, which causes a tiny spinning magnetic droplet, or soliton, to form.
Where did you get this 1000 mph speed for electrons? Please link us to the scientific source of this "fact."

Also, blurs are seen. Electrons are not. No technology currently known to man can actually "see" electrons. Detect? Yes. See? No.
defender

Manchester, KY

#123816 Mar 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Another dodge.

I have provided all of the assumption of abiogenesis. You cannot dispute even one of them.

No, you can't say the same thing about god because I can dispute the premises (not that I really want to, but that is not the point).

Now, which premise would you like to dispute?

chickenfeces.
You or no one else for that matter has ever proven in anyway that life arose from any spontaneous chemical reactions...
You may be a legend in your own mind but here in the real world you are just another kool aid drinking crack pot...
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#123817 Mar 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
All required elements for a space shuttle are known to exist.
That doesn't suggest that a space shuttle could self organize. So much for your god of evolution.
Tye means of organizing the elements of a space shuttle does not exist naturally. The means of organizing the elements of a rudimentary self-replicating RNA in a phospholipid envelope exists naturally. It's called "chemistry." It's one of those subjects in school that you failed, remember?
defender

Manchester, KY

#123818 Mar 16, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same thing. Just like there is no difference between micropregnant and macropregnant. They are the same thing.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!!
Evolution is religion ... that's the only fact about it...
defender

Manchester, KY

#123819 Mar 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>All required elements for a space shuttle are known to exist.
That doesn't suggest that a space shuttle could self organize. So much for your god of evolution.
It was all just there... That's it ... Best answer you'll get... They cannot prove anything in the lab so what the hell just make it up....
defender

Manchester, KY

#123820 Mar 16, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>You could IF you can first establish that your God exists.

In the other theories of abiogenesis, all the required elements are known to exist. Not so much for your God.
Yeah all the known elements are there and yet still can't get a successful peer reviewed experiment in any lab in the world... Epic fail... But hey maybe y'all could get Harry Potter to help you out...
HTS

Williston, ND

#123821 Mar 16, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tye means of organizing the elements of a space shuttle does not exist naturally. The means of organizing the elements of a rudimentary self-replicating RNA in a phospholipid envelope exists naturally. It's called "chemistry." It's one of those subjects in school that you failed, remember?
Absurd scientific logic.
Because simple chemical reactions occur naturally, you assume that vastly more complex molecules could spontaneously evolve.
You have no plausible theory as to how a genetic code could evolve into existence, so you have nothing.
One way or another

United States

#123822 Mar 16, 2013
Electrons have been caught and photographed, but the Evo moron seems behind the times as always.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123823 Mar 16, 2013
Lord Kelvin, a highly esteemed physicist, wrote, "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."
*Lord Kelvin: Vict. Inst., 124, pg. 267
Almost all great scientists have believed in intelligent design.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123824 Mar 16, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It was all just there... That's it ... Best answer you'll get... They cannot prove anything in the lab so what the hell just make it up....
They think that if they can document self-replication of RNA under controlled laboratory conditions, that a vastly more complex genetic code could evolve without intelligence. Their logic is laughable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123825 Mar 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
Lord Kelvin, a highly esteemed physicist, wrote, "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."
*Lord Kelvin: Vict. Inst., 124, pg. 267
Almost all great scientists have believed in intelligent design.
Yet he could not put those supposed evidences into words.

It looks like his own ideas were nonsensical.

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min MikeF 137,399
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 11 min Zog Has-fallen 662
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min DanFromSmithville 117,547
Darwin on the rocks 4 hr The Dude 192
Humans DID evolve from apes! 21 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 22 hr John K 3
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" Wed The Dude 14

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE