Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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
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.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123892 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
d
Scientific evidence of God... You can start by looking out the window. The whole of nature loudly proclaims the existence of a supreme being.

Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), one of the most highly regarded physicists of the nineteen century, repeatedly cited evidence of intelligent design through his observations in science:

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism… Creative power is the only feasible answer to the origin of life from a scientific perspective."*

 *Lord Kelvin quotes (Irish Scientist, 1824-1907)

It is obvious that your cavalier dismissal of evidence is only a reflection of your abject stupidity coupled with unbelievable arrogance.

HIV/AIDS... You have provide no references. All you have done is indicated that you are a mindless "go-with-the-flow" sheep, guzzling whatever kool-aid given to you by talkorigins.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123893 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The monkey/ Shakespeare scenario requires a fixed end target. No intelligent human being can write a play by contemplating one letter at a time.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123894 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Actually, would have to disagree with you here and pre-empt HTSs next post.

The computer program would have been programmed by an intelligent coder (actually wouldn't have to be that intelligent - just sentient).

And this is the problem with some of these analogies - it is easy to draw parallels with 'design' and infer Intelligence - the point is with natural selection it is a simple selection that dosent need a 'driving hand' just survival (or technically a reproductive advantage).

Not disagreeing with your point as such - as I say can just guess the response to it so thought it wise to pre-empt it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123895 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The monkey/ Shakespeare scenario requires a fixed end target. No intelligent human being can write a play by contemplating one letter at a time.
Well of course the original play would have to be written by intelligence, but neither the program that creates the plays needs intelligence.

And that need was because you chose to have a specific goal. There is no specific goal for evolution except for the survival of life.

If you make a test with an artificial goal in it that requires a matching driving device.

Come up with a better scenario and we will show how it can be done. The fault that intelligence is needed for one small part of this is not ours. It is yours for continually moving the goal posts.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#123896 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific evidence of God... You can start by looking out the window. The whole of nature loudly proclaims the existence of a supreme being.
Sorry thought you said you had scientific evidence not your opinion
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), one of the most highly regarded physicists of the nineteen century, repeatedly cited evidence of intelligent design through his observations in science:
"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism… Creative power is the only feasible answer to the origin of life from a scientific perspective."*
 *Lord Kelvin quotes (Irish Scientist, 1824-1907)
Sorry, thought you had scientific evidence not just someone else's century old opinion
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious that your cavalier dismissal of evidence is only a reflection of your abject stupidity coupled with unbelievable arrogance.
As I say not dismissal of evidence - just your opinion as it isn't supported by the evidence
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
HIV/AIDS... You have provide no references. All you have done is indicated that you are a mindless "go-with-the-flow" sheep, guzzling whatever kool-aid given to you by talkorigins.
Actually I did provide numerous references to refute the following points you made (and others)
HIV has never been contracted via needle stick
HIV has never been contracted by female prostitutes
HIV has never been found in teenagers

Most were from the CDC - none were from TO - I believe you dismissed CDC as some lefty atheist propaganda organisation.

But I did provide references - why do you have to lie - if your argument is watertight you shouldn't need to.

Want to try again?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123897 Mar 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Warning: The following comment was made before the first cup of coffee!
In a sense, most of our cells (some blood cells the exception?) have spinning motors (ATP Synthase motors) that drive our energy. Or he may be referring simply to electrons (which as far as I know we cannot predict their precise location or velocity). But there is a lot of rotation going on in our bodies for sure. And how this relates to Earth's rotation? I don't know but there sure is a lot of rotation going on everywhere from the atoms to galaxies. Seems fitting.

Pulling our favorite idiots strings?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123898 Mar 17, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hah - you really are a lying piece of sh1t aren't you - cut and pasting from someone else and passing it off as your own knowledge - low, even for you

He didn't acknowledge his error about electron speed either.

Fortunately he stole something that was actually true. If he does that a couple million more times he might actually end up knowing something.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123899 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> ds RNA cannot self organize from raw materials.

https://www.google.com/search...

Appears that you might be wrong.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What so you means it's "just that easy."?


Just rattling your cage.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Gross and dishonest oversimplification doesn't remove any barriers.


Gross and dishonest overcomplexification doesn't add any barriers.

Still, the point remains, the gap you are trying to put your micro-god in is getting smaller and smaller. With self replication of RNA demonstrated we are inching closer to demonstration that DNA is of purely natural origin.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123900 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
"If we had this (whatever) boy we'd show you!!! If if if....
Getting stale...

Well, it is boring having to refute you on the same points on a daily basis, but it is not stale yet.

So, to save me some typing lets look at my post again:

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Why would it be impossible? It involves things that are finite (physics, chemistry). It is not only possible, it is very dooable. If we had the equivilant of the Manhattan project to do it we could solve it as quickly as we created an A bomb 70 years ago.

defender wrote, "<quoted text>.. That much is known and is exactly why evolutionist refuse to use this process as starting point for ToE."

No, stupid. Abiogenesis is a different process (chemical) that is a different field (chemistry) than evolution (biology). It is the same reason that people building planes don't start by describing bicycle design.
----------

Now, again, what part do you not understand? We know how the sun works pretty well but we can't replicate a star.

The base of chemical knowledge that we currently have is not yet adequate to replicate biological life. Well, we have sort of, but not fully.

And let me restate my main point of my post:
Abiogenesis is a different process (chemical) that is a different field (chemistry) than evolution (biology). It is the same reason that people building planes don't start by describing bicycle design.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123901 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep just poof right out of the nothingness... Whatever gets you through the night bud...


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>complex molecules DO come about naturally.... dumbarse

Just reread it because you missed the actual point. Nothing I need to add here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123902 Mar 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for understanding. They don't want to understand, they want to fight. I won't give them the respect of answering them directly, so they say anything to try and make me respond.
At least that's how I see things.
Mugwump hates badly, what he cannot know. Probably the worst hater of science, by what he says and does.

Confabulation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123903 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot explain anything to that one... He just cannot comprehend fact from fiction...

Don't talk about yourself like that.

That is our job.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123904 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Any scientist of merit today will admit that how life came to be on this planet is a mystery... But wait!! Hold the phone!! Dogen has the answer!!... We are here so life just must have started spontaneously!!!

I challenge you to show me where I said that.

I am just pointing out that the molecule most similar to DNA and which is structured like a mono strand of DNA is naturally occurring.

defender wrote:
<quoted text>
... Total (Hawking's) cop out... Since the modern day evolutionist gets their ass handed to them every time on this issue a new plan has arisen!! Just repeat the lie over and over and that will make it true...
You are indeed a short bus riding loon..

The rest is just an out of control emotional rant. Nothing worth responding to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123905 Mar 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Raw materials do to self-organize in RNA.

you seemed to disagree with that point before.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Prove that a pile of bricks can't self organize into a skyscraper, given millions of years...

What would be the driving mechanism for it doing so? "Chemical evolution" occurs because of natural processes. Just as in your self organizing RNA above.

What is to stop RNA (or a similar precursor molecule) from forming DNA. What mechanism prevents it when RNA is made up of the same bases and atoms? The process of chemical combination is finite and fairly well known.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123906 Mar 17, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol !!!! Yeah whatever...

Got anything? Inability to respond to facts is the hallmark of the creationist.
One way or another

United States

#123907 Mar 17, 2013
If complex molecules come about naturally, then simply prove how the first one came about naturally?

Oops, I'm asking the Evo morons to tell more fairy tales. Lol

Morons

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min Agents of Corruption 121,039
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 138,193
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 5 hr Dogen 380
Darwin on the rocks 6 hr TurkanaBoy 363
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 9 hr The Dude 718
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE