Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123971 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Do you realize that you've never contributed one iota of science to this forum?
I've heard all of the recycled BS that you atheists parrot.
It's all been debunked over and over again, but you seem to think that every time you post something it's an original thought.
You guys are incapable of nothing but canned retorts that you've copied and pasted off atheist websites.

Change the words 'atheists' to 'creationists' and 'atheist' to 'creationist' and you describe yourself perfectly. This is what we call "Psychological Projection".

"Psychological projection was first conceptualized by Sigmund Freud as a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world instead. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting faults onto others.[1] The original idea was that projection would allow for reduced anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pr...
LowellGuy

United States

#123972 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not "angry".
I'm asking you to back up your baseless statements.
RNA cannot "self-organize".
You post a google search and think you've answered the challange.
If you think that life can self-organize, you need to come up with some proposal as to how DNA can self-organize from random molecules.
All you have done to this point is create distractions.
What is the mechanism in chemistry that prohibits self-replicating RNA from forming naturally? Please be specific, and link us to the scientific source that supports it.
LowellGuy

United States

#123973 Mar 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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
We find amino acids in meteorites. Do we have to show how the first "complex" molecule formed to accept that they can, and do, occur naturally?
One way or another

United States

#123974 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen is so insecure, that he just keeps rattling on forever. That's his way of coping with his diseases mind.
One way or another

United States

#123975 Mar 18, 2013
Diseases was written diseased above, but as usual, it was my phones fault for getting it wrong. Lol

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123976 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time while studying biology at a university when I actually believed in the evolution model.
One of the things that convinced me of the fallacy of evolution was, frankly, the complete absence of science manifested by those who preach Darwinism.
When I listened to their canned arguments and started processing the utter BS that was being spewed, it was a wake-up call.
The morons on this forum are only solidifying my certainty as to the fallacy of evolution.
They have all been incapable of presenting a single compelling argument.
I'm thoroughly convinced that not a single piece of scientific evidence can be presented to validate the evolutionary hypothesis.
It is all philosophy-based.

Not sure what you are talking about. Are you just bitter that you know less about science than nearly anyone here (except Jimbo, of course)? And you seem to actually know absolutely NOTHING about evolution. You don't even know that it is observable.

Even Russel knows more than you. You can take that as an insult if you like. I certainly intend it as one.

You knew what you wanted to believe and SURPRISE(!) you believe it. Shocking.

Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123977 Mar 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, using brain. Yes, it sure looks like a catastrophic world-wide flood to me. For example polystrate fossils, bent rock, etc.
Afterall, that's how fossils form, isn't it? You see, you've never been able to demonstrate fossil formation gradually over millions of years.
Every single fossil ever found first appears fully formed and then either became extinct without change or is still with us the same way today.
And your dating method is based on circular logic based on what's required to fit your theory. Find a fossil, date the rock next to it so that the organism fits the theory.
And then there's all the telltail signs of quick moving mud and rapid burial, but you ignore all that. The layers you talk about are meaningless in a traumatic flood scenario aren't they?
Numerous living fossils, Lazarus fossils, fossils frozen still while eating, giving birth, even having stomach contents of "evolutionary" successors.
I wish for once you had some rational explanations for some of that instead of the usual cheap shots and ridicule.

This is just nuts pokey. If you had studied evolution even a little bit you could refute have your own arguments in an instant.

Do you want me to do another point by point refutation of all this nonsense? I have done it before. While it seems redundant to have to do so again, creationists have never been quick learners.
One way or another

United States

#123978 Mar 18, 2013
Copying and pasting is not understanding. Morons can copy and paste, as the Evo morons have proven for years. They offer nothing of value from their own minds.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123979 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, Biology is not considered to be pseudoscience.
.
Speculation as to the origin of species has nothing to do with experimental biology.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123980 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You posts come across as very angry. But I will provisionally accept this as a limitation of the medium we are using to communicate.
<quoted text>
And I, my dear fellow, seldom make "baseless statements". As you have seen, I back up what I am saying with links, quotes or clearly worded logic..... well, usually.
<quoted text>
This is what my google search demonstrated as being incorrect. The entire page was filled with information about RNA self organization. Perhaps you did not open and read any of them. Certainly you did not digest any of their content.
<quoted text>
But I did. Let me be more specific.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14r...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/11...
(somewhat dated, but still)
http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-re...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
<quoted text>
I love it. "random". Other than mutations is there anything in biology or chemistry that I have claimed is "random"?
Perhaps I should clarify one, admittedly tangential, point. I believe God created a universe that is subject to natural laws and natural processes. Physics, Chemistry (including abiogenesis, Biology (including evolution), are all subject to those laws. So (in my personal view only, I am offering no scientific proof of this because I have exactly NONE) I believe God created a Life-ing universe (to borrow a neologism from Alan Watts).
<quoted text>
If by "create distractions you mean "provide scientific information" then I am completely guilty.
Dogen, you accuse me of being angry and stupid.
Then you post links that you obviously haven't read in the attempt to set up a smokescreen. None of the links you posted documents that either DNA or RNA can self organize from raw materials...
Why do you persist in irrelevant distractions?
All I'm doing is challenging you to back up you claims with scientific evidence for abiosgenesis.
To this point you have provided no evidence.
If you think one of those articles makes any valid points, then explain in your own words the scientific logic behind it.
Your vain attempts to insult me aren't working.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#123981 Mar 18, 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!!!... 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..
"Spontaneous" is not a how, it's a relative descriptive of a methods in which something could happen. Often it refers to the natural methods, the natural "hows" of how things can happen. Claiming it probably occurred through natural, or "spontaneous," interactions is the logical, and sane, and fair, position. Claiming you know how, but then simply stating it's not through natural processes, such as invoking a god, is dishonest, insane, and illogical.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123982 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Do you realize that you've never contributed one iota of science to this forum?
I've heard all of the recycled BS that you atheists parrot.
It's all been debunked over and over again, but you seem to think that every time you post something it's an original thought.
You guys are incapable of nothing but canned retorts that you've copied and pasted off atheist websites.
LMAO!!!
Do you realize that you've never contributed one iota of science to this forum?
I've heard all of the recycled BS that you creationists parrot.
It's all been debunked over and over again, but you seem to think that every time you post something it's an original thought.
You guys are incapable of nothing but canned retorts that you've copied and pasted off creation.org .
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123983 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a time while studying biology at a university when I actually believed in the evolution model.
One of the things that convinced me of the fallacy of evolution was, frankly, the complete absence of science manifested by those who preach Darwinism.
When I listened to their canned arguments and started processing the utter BS that was being spewed, it was a wake-up call.
The morons on this forum are only solidifying my certainty as to the fallacy of evolution.
They have all been incapable of presenting a single compelling argument.
I'm thoroughly convinced that not a single piece of scientific evidence can be presented to validate the evolutionary hypothesis.
It is all philosophy-based.
Liar. You never made it out of middle school. You're lack of basic scientific education is on display for all to laugh at.
One way or another

United States

#123984 Mar 18, 2013
The Evo morons don't have anything, so they use childishness. They keep twisting word and meaning, while they claim any number of things about you, that are designed to create fighting and to keep you answering to what they want. Don't play their game, say what you want and let it go. They use numbers because they don't possess the intellect.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123985 Mar 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the mechanism in chemistry that prohibits self-replicating RNA from forming naturally? Please be specific, and link us to the scientific source that supports it.
The same mechanism that prohibits you from flipping a coin 1,000 and achievng 1,000 heads. It's a matter of probability.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123986 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith.
Are you telling me that there is no "evidence" behind your faith? If there is evidence of God, what is it in your mind?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#123987 Mar 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The question dipshit is how does a self replicating cell comes into existence without a design in the first place?...
Self-replicating RNA gets enveloped by phospholipids. No design required. Just chemistry.
defender wrote:
For what benefit was it for the first organisms to reproduce?...
That's like asking, "for what benefit was it for the first diamond to form?" Chemistry doesn't care about benefit. It cares about electrons, protons, and neutrons. That's all.
defender wrote:
Please one of you grow a pair and answer this...
Just did. Pretty easy.
defender wrote:
The beginning of life is but one massive problem...
One being worked on diligently by scientists, and not at all by people who say "God did it with magic."
defender wrote:
How and why it reproduced is another...
The self-replication came first. Life came later. It's only creationists who want life to come first. Stop trying to make reality fit into the ridiculous stories found in Bronze Age books and start examining the evidence. We have figured out far more than you even comprehend. Most questions you're posing have been figured out decades ago. Please, join the rest of us in 2013, and get out of 1100.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Redding, CA

#123988 Mar 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>Self-replicating RNA gets enveloped by phospholipids. No design required. Just chemistry.
defender wrote, "For what benefit was it for the first organisms to reproduce?..."

That's like asking, "for what benefit was it for the first diamond to form?" Chemistry doesn't care about benefit. It cares about electrons, protons, and neutrons. That's all.
defender wrote, "Please one of you grow a pair and answer this... "

Just did. Pretty easy.
defender wrote, "The beginning of life is but one massive problem..."

One being worked on diligently by scientists, and not at all by people who say "God did it with magic."
defender wrote, "How and why it reproduced is another... "

The self-replication came first. Life came later. It's only creationists who want life to come first. Stop trying to make reality fit into the ridiculous stories found in Bronze Age books and start examining the evidence. We have figured out far more than you even comprehend. Most questions you're posing have been figured out decades ago. Please, join the rest of us in 2013, and get out of 1100.
You are full of hot air!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#123989 Mar 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons don't have anything, so they use childishness. They keep twisting word and meaning, while they claim any number of things about you, that are designed to create fighting and to keep you answering to what they want. Don't play their game, say what you want and let it go. They use numbers because they don't possess the intellect.
Still pushing the "Magic Sky Daddy did it with pixie dust" thesis, I see. Have you made any technical or medical advances using this theory yet? Or do you need some more time? Seems like 2000 years should have been enough though.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#123990 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The same mechanism that prohibits you from flipping a coin 1,000 and achievng 1,000 heads. It's a matter of probability.
If I have infinite coin flips, what are the odds there will ever be 1,000 consecutive heads flips? HINT: 1: lim->1 In other words, the statistically improbable becomes the statistically inevitable. Welcome to the wacky world of statistics! Get a clue.

Your understanding of the probabilities is this: If I take X ingredients, and no life occurs from those ingredients, it's impossible, because I just tested it.

However, if life is a chemical process (which it is), and if the laws of chemistry are the same now as they have always been on Earth (which they have, unless you have evidence to the contrary), and if there was no limit to the number of times various elements could combine and no limit on the time for such reactions to occur (which there wasn't, aside from Earth's ultimate lifespan), and assuming that life exists now (which it does), and without evidence for anything bringing living organisms to Earth from outside (which merely pushes the abiogenesis question to another location), and assuming it wasn't a magical event (as there is zero evidence that magic is real), naturalistic abiogenesis occurred, which means life DID arise naturally from non-living material at some point, via chemical processes.

We acknowledge that life didn't HAVE to occur, merely that it did. If you're asking how likely is it for life to occur if we have to predict it in a given environment within a given timeframe, you might have a point, but that isn't the question.

I asked you for a chemistry-based mechanism that would prohibit elements from combining to form self-replicating RNA and would prohibit said RNA from being protected by a phospholipid envelope. I ask again. If you can't cite one, just admit it. Admit that there is nothing in chemistry that prevents it from occurring.

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) 1 hr River Tam 33,031
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Endofdays 81,662
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Science 164,275
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web