Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

defender

United States

#123871 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Not out of nothingness. It has already been shown that there was more than one source for the building blocks of DNA. Those do polymerize all by themselves into RNA under the right conditions. And those conditions existed on early Earth.
Oh so these conditions existed on early earth huh?... But yet in the defense of the Miller experiment your side says there is no way of knowing such conditions?... Soooo which is it?
Oxidation is found in the earliest known rock which would have rendered your reducing atmosphere hypothesis moot and destroyed any early life (shh keep that on the down low) So tell us all about these right conditions of yours and why we haven't been presented with any successful experiments?
After all you said yourself all the conditions and elements are known so what's the problem?.... Perhaps you're just a bag of hot air huh?
HTS

Williston, ND

#123872 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not out of nothingness. It has already been shown that there was more than one source for the building blocks of DNA. Those do polymerize all by themselves into RNA under the right conditions. And those conditions existed on early Earth.
A genetic code cannot self polymerize. Random nucleotides do not constitutebe genetic information.

A monkey can type random keys...
That doesn't suggest that he can type Shakepeare.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123873 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> A genetic code cannot self polymerize. Random nucleotides do not constitutebe genetic information.
A monkey can type random keys...
That doesn't suggest that he can type Shakepeare.
Actually with natural selection a monkey can type Shakespeare. If you promise to watch it I can link a video for you to watch.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123874 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually with natural selection a monkey can type Shakespeare. If you promise to watch it I can link a video for you to watch.
I've already seen that idiotic video that Dick Dawkins produced.
Any "force" that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have extensive knowledge of the English language... In other words... Intelligence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123875 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so these conditions existed on early earth huh?... But yet in the defense of the Miller experiment your side says there is no way of knowing such conditions?... Soooo which is it?
Oxidation is found in the earliest known rock which would have rendered your reducing atmosphere hypothesis moot and destroyed any early life (shh keep that on the down low) So tell us all about these right conditions of yours and why we haven't been presented with any successful experiments?
After all you said yourself all the conditions and elements are known so what's the problem?.... Perhaps you're just a bag of hot air huh?
There are ways of deducing early Earth conditions.

No, oxidation is not known in the earliest of rocks, that is one of the clues we have to the early life atmosphere. We know that oxidation is incomplete from that time period. Oxygen is created by life as a waste product so life would have plenty of time to evolve to withstand the effects of oxygen. A

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123876 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already seen that idiotic video that Dick Dawkins produced.
Any "force" that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have extensive knowledge of the English language... In other words... Intelligence.
That is because your idiot challenge requires intelligence. Life does not require intelligence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123877 Mar 17, 2013
And that was not the video I was talking about. I was talking about one that would explain abiogenesis to you.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123878 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already seen that idiotic video that Dick Dawkins produced.
Any "force" that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have extensive knowledge of the English language... In other words... Intelligence.
And that's why analogies are just that - a way of describing a concept in a simple manner.

With evolution - the selection is simply of the organisms that have more chance of survival - that's it - nothing more - no intelligence required

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#123879 Mar 17, 2013
"Do you fall to your knees, you millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him above the starry canopy,
beyond the stars he must dwell."

From Beethoven's No. 9 ("Choral"), which sits on the pinnacle of the Mount Everest of Symphonies!

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all!
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123880 Mar 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Do you fall to your knees, you millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him above the starry canopy,
beyond the stars he must dwell."
From Beethoven's No. 9 ("Choral"), which sits on the pinnacle of the Mount Everest of Symphonies!
Happy St. Patrick's Day to all!
Beethoven - How I hate to agree with you YET AGAIN in a single year.

I owe you a pint of Guinness - have a good one.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Redding, CA

#123881 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>And that's why analogies are just that - a way of describing a concept in a simple manner.

With evolution - the selection is simply of the organisms that have more chance of survival - that's it - nothing more - no intelligence required
If this is true, then where does the new information come from?
HTS

Williston, ND

#123882 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's why analogies are just that - a way of describing a concept in a simple manner.
With evolution - the selection is simply of the organisms that have more chance of survival - that's it - nothing more - no intelligence required
Eolutiondidit is not a scientific explanation.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123883 Mar 17, 2013
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is true, then where does the new information come from?
Information is a slightly misleading word - but the answer is the same nonetheless - the information comes from mutations.

And not just point mutations (single base pairs) but insertions , duplications etc followed by other mutations.

These can 'add' to the genome - and in some cases provide 'coding' for new amino acids.

I have 'quoted' the term coding as although the genetic 'code' is a useful analogy - again it is just that - an analogy
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123884 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Eolutiondidit is not a scientific explanation.
So presumably gravitydidit isn't either?

Oh, and still waiting for your scientific evidence of your god (you know the stuff you said you had)

And of course backing up any of the crap about HIV/AIDS - but given up on that one to be honest

Now - let me guess which parts of this post you are going to answer and which you are going to ignore?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#123885 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Beethoven - How I hate to agree with you YET AGAIN in a single year.
I owe you a pint of Guinness - have a good one.
I would not only love the pint but love the company. Thanks!
HTS

Williston, ND

#123886 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So presumably gravitydidit isn't either?
Oh, and still waiting for your scientific evidence of your god (you know the stuff you said you had)
And of course backing up any of the crap about HIV/AIDS - but given up on that one to be honest
Now - let me guess which parts of this post you are going to answer and which you are going to ignore?
Mugwump...
You haven't scientifically refuted anything I've said.
All you have done is regurgitate the same recycled atheist BS.
Gravity has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so why do your persist in idiotic distractions?
The answer is clear.... you have no science to back up your evo-fairytales.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123887 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because your idiot challenge requires intelligence. Life does not require intelligence.
SZ... your aimless evo-babbling is getting annoying.
At least try to make a logical point once in awhile.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123889 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Mugwump...
You haven't scientifically refuted anything I've said.
All you have done is regurgitate the same recycled atheist BS.
Gravity has nothing to do with abiogenesis, so why do your persist in idiotic distractions?
The answer is clear.... you have no science to back up your evo-fairytales.
Errr - you haven't presented anything regarding your scientific evidence of a god - so not much can do about that.

And as I recall - your HIV /AIDS nonsense I refuted with numerous references.

And no, gravity has naff all to do with abiogenisis - but then Abio has nothing to do with evolution

So the answer is clear... You post stuff but won't back it up - and don't understand the subject you are arguing against.

And somehow this is MY FAULT - good grief now I can imagine what it is like to be married
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123890 Mar 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not only love the pint but love the company. Thanks!
Suspect if we kept off the subject of evolution (religion am fine with, even as an outsider) would be fine ... Though possibly avoid work talk as well - you being an IT auditor and me being an IT cowboy :-)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123891 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ... your aimless evo-babbling is getting annoying.
At least try to make a logical point once in awhile.
It is not my fault if you cannot see how your test demanded that intelligence needed to be put into the selection method.

Evolution demands that selection choose the most likely to reproduce successfully. Luckily for us that is not an "intelligent" act. And actually it takes no intelligence for the monkey/Shakespeare scenario. That has been done with a relatively simple computer program and you would really have to be stretching things if you called that computer program intelligent.

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) 8 min DanFromSmithville 168,677
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 8 min Paul Porter1 197
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min kenedy njoroge 141,811
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 17 min Paul Porter1 561
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 50 min ChristineM 19,759
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 2 hr NoahLovesU 6,179
three preventive measures for PID 9 hr qiu 1
More from around the web