Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178619 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.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123992 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speculation as to the origin of species has nothing to do with experimental biology.

Evolution is observable and proven science.

Also the earth is round.

Wishing these facts away does not make them go away. These are facts that will be here long after we have gone the way of the dodo.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123993 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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?


I posted the choice of links I did to keep you from dodging. I have covered all your escape routes. Regardless of how you want to define your terms (a common creationist "trick") you are blocked by one of them.

Of course you always have denialism (see below).
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Attempts to insult you are not necessary. I can say nothing that would make you look like more of an ignorant goober than what you yourself provide in countless posts.

What I hear you telling me is that you are not going to do any reading and you are going to pretend any link I provide has no evidence for abiogenesis in it.

It makes your side of the game pretty easy even if it is transparent.

Ever see Chicago? "Mr. Cellophane, should have been my name, Mr. Cellophane. You can see right through me. Walk right by me. Never know I'm around......." Best song in the movie including Richard Gere singing "Razzle Dazzle".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123994 Mar 18, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>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 .

Nice rebuttal.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123995 Mar 18, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Liar. You never made it out of middle school. You're lack of basic scientific education is on display for all to laugh at.

Yea, for someone who claims to be educated he has done more to prove the opposite than any poster in the history of this forum.

At least Jimbo admits he was a 10th grade drop-out. And while he has a hate filled agenda against school and teachers (enough that it paints a pretty clear picture of his educational past) at least he has enough balls to admit it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123996 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.

Projection test:

The Creo 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.

All I had to do was change Evo to Creo and it is like you are looking in a mirror, isn't it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123997 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.

Perfect example of your ignorance of science. You think chemistry is a matter of probability. That is nuts. Where do you get this ignorant crap?

Okay, how many times is the word 'probability' used in the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry


extra credit reading.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...


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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123998 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you telling me that there is no "evidence" behind your faith? If there is evidence of God, what is it in your mind?

Short Zen story:

Huike (student): "I have a restless mind and beg Master to settle it for me."

Bodhidharma (master): "Show me your mind and I will pacify it."

Huike [upon reflection]: "I can't find my mind."

Bodhidharma: "See, I have already pacified your mind."


Sorry, I could not resist.

God is beyond conception, but the path to God is within conception. But the path of conception never leads to the desired end.

So to conceptualize my faith in God cannot get you to where I am. Indeed, it will only get you more lost.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123999 Mar 18, 2013
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are full of hot air!

I love it when the creotards have absolutely nothing. Their impulsive need to respond exposes their nothingness.




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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124000 Mar 18, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that pseudoscience never makes progress and never advances science.

That makes the creationism the apex pseudoscience.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124001 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect example of your ignorance of science. You think chemistry is a matter of probability. That is nuts. Where do you get this ignorant crap?
Okay, how many times is the word 'probability' used in the following article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
extra credit reading.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
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.
Yes, properties of matter can be reduced to functions of probability.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124002 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, properties of matter can be reduced to functions of probability.

Wow. What are the odds of that?

Nice assertion, but you did not deal with any content in any meaningful way.

[I just informed the fundy that he has nothing]
HTS

Williston, ND

#124003 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted the choice of links I did to keep you from dodging. I have covered all your escape routes. Regardless of how you want to define your terms (a common creationist "trick") you are blocked by one of them.
Of course you always have denialism (see below).
<quoted text>
Attempts to insult you are not necessary. I can say nothing that would make you look like more of an ignorant goober than what you yourself provide in countless posts.
What I hear you telling me is that you are not going to do any reading and you are going to pretend any link I provide has no evidence for abiogenesis in it.
It makes your side of the game pretty easy even if it is transparent.
Ever see Chicago? "Mr. Cellophane, should have been my name, Mr. Cellophane. You can see right through me. Walk right by me. Never know I'm around......." Best song in the movie including Richard Gere singing "Razzle Dazzle".
You're the one dodging.
You posted irrelevant smokescreens.
You have posted no evidence that a genetic code can self organize from raw materials.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124004 Mar 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. What are the odds of that?
Nice assertion, but you did not deal with any content in any meaningful way.
[I just informed the fundy that he has nothing]
Go ahead and make an even bigger fool of yourself.
What I have stated is scientific fact.
The only "science" that isn't subservient to laws of probability is the pseudoscience of evolution.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124005 Mar 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If I have infinite coin flips, what are the odds there will ever be 1,000 consecutive heads flips?.
You don't have "infinite coin flips."
If billions of people flipped billions of coins on billions of planets for billions of years, 1,000 consecutive heads could never be achieved. It's a matter of probability... and when evolution is subjected to constraints of probability, it invariably falls flat.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124006 Mar 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have "infinite coin flips."
If billions of people flipped billions of coins on billions of planets for billions of years, 1,000 consecutive heads could never be achieved. It's a matter of probability... and when evolution is subjected to constraints of probability, it invariably falls flat.
Nope, that's not how probability works.

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) 57 min MikeF 164,712
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 1 hr lozzza 106
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr lozzza 19,142
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr dirtclod 141,472
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 23 hr MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? Sun Zog Has-fallen 28
Christian Theology and the Natural Sciences are... Sat Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web