Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124024 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons don't know that electrons have been captured and filmed and when they are told, they claim this was done 50 years ago.
Lmao you frukin idiots.
Electron filmed for first time ever
phys.org/news122897584.htmlFeb 22, 2008 – This is the first time an electron has ever been filmed, and the results are presented in ... Previously it has been impossible to photograph electrons since their extremely ...
Is that a film of an electron? Or merely a film, like cloud chamber photos, of the expected effects that an "electron" would explain.

In other words, an observation of EFFECTS that our theories say are CAUSED by an entity called an "electron". When you see the shadow of a bird on the ground, you still cannot prove whether it was really a bird or a kite just by looking at the shadow.

Similarly, the excellent sequence of fossil we find from ape to human is explained perfectly by evolution and no other theory to date. We cannot see the cavemen, just as we cannot see the electron. We could only predict their effects and see if those effects happen.

In both cases, they do. Electrons, and evolution, confirmed.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124025 Mar 19, 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.
But who said you need to achieve 1000 consecutive heads? As an example, approximately 10% of randomly produced polypeptide strands appear to show some catalytic activity. Catalysing reactions is one of the main jobs of proteins (enzymes).

So in the "early days", a randomly generated RNA/DNA sequence could have a 10% chance of speeding up some reaction, by some small amount. If speeding up some reaction even slightly increased the survival odds of the primitive cell, there would be positive selection.

From there, any incremental improvements caused by random changes to this enzyme would be further selected. Over many iterations, the enzyme would become far more efficient.

Note that the initial "10%" corresponds to less than FOUR consecutive heads, not 1000! From there, natural selection takes over and its no longer a question of simple probability calcs.

More generally, this is where ALL these creationist "probability calcs" fall down. You assume that the final product, like hemoglobin or ATP, had to spring into existence in its modern form through random probability, and its not the case.

We assume instead, that the earliest proto-cells were extremely simple, and extremely inefficient, and had millions of years to achieve anything like the efficiency of the simplest cells today.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124026 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to believe in evolution, you have to believe that the proverbial monkey will one day type Shakespeare. This is because essentially all proposed mechanisms of evolution require one improbability after another.
You simply assume that ToE is a fact, and cavalierly ignore principles of probability. It stems from the arrogant mindset of atheism.
False, again, as per my previous post above.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124027 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's truly laughable to listen to an atheist to pretend to lecture others on probability concepts, when he flatly rejects them altogether to justify his religion.
False, again, as per the above post.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124028 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Natural selection cannot select individual nucleotides, so your analogy is false.
Evolution can select a cell containing an advantageous nucleotide change. So this is false.
Whenever you say "evolution is a fact", it's code for "I have no scientifically logical refutation."
No, its code for "the effects predicted by the theory of evolution are actually observed in nature. Including direct observation of actual evolution on a small scale (as to be expected in the time frames), and the indirect observation of evolution on a large scale according to the fossil record and the genome".
Evolution is atheism. If you're a Christian and accept evolution, then you're either denying that God had anything to do with the creation, or you're denying the atheistic mechanisms of evolution, ie, mutations and natural selection.
So, the world consists only of Atheists and Christians, does it?

Genesis is ruled out. God is not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124029 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Diseases was written diseased above, but as usual, it was my phones fault for getting it wrong. Lol
Nothing is ever your fault, Jimbo. You are perfect.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124030 Mar 19, 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.
False. As previously explained.
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.
False. As previously explained.
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.
False. As previously explained.
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.
False. As previously explained.
And then there's all the telltail signs of quick moving mud and rapid burial, but you ignore all that.
False. As previously explained.
The layers you talk about are meaningless in a traumatic flood scenario aren't they?
False. Many of them could not have formed in flood conditions but require dessication (drying out). Others are fine shales requiring huge amounts of time with still water to settle. Others are the remains of creatures that if alive at the same time, would have choked the oceans three miles deep, "shoulder to shoulder". Instead they had to exist for millions of years with slow deposition. Your response to this can be summed up as "one petrified hat".
Numerous living fossils, Lazarus fossils, fossils frozen still while eating, giving birth, even having stomach contents of "evolutionary" successors.
False. As previously explained.
I wish for once you had some rational explanations for some of that instead of the usual cheap shots and ridicule.
With great patience, you have been given rational explanations for every single item above, cheap shots to the minimum. You want to go through them AGAIN?

On the other hand, you continually throwing this debunked crap at me still does not explain in creationists terms the question I asked you...

"The order of burial does NOT match any conceivable "creationist" criterion such as running speed, natural altitude adaptation, or any other criterion that could fit the record into a fairy tale about escaping rising flood waters."

Regurgitating debunked claims to avoid examining this properly is just a red herring because you know you cannot explain it.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124031 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What you've presented is your atheistic religion.
I'm waiting for science to back up your ridiculous claims.
I've given you evidence of God.
You've turned up your nose and rejected it.
Your refusal to evaluate the evidence doesn't erase its existence.
Your contention that E=MC^2 proves the non-existence of God is a self evidence fallacy. You cannot single out a translated scripture in the Bible to prove the non-existence of God. Einstein himself said he believed in God and your pathetic attempts to disprove God with math are laughable.
Science backs my opinion up daily, I base my opinion of scientific fact. Because you choose to ignore those facts is no ones fault but your own

You are LYING again, you have not provided any evidence, you have provided your personal opinion with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. Funny how the creatard view of evidence means guess while the atheist view of evidence means evidence

I treat mythology as mythology, if you consider that means I turn my nose up at it then fair enough.

What existence? What evidence? The more I (and others) ask you for proof of existence and evidence the more you fail to provide any.

Wrong, my contention is that you exist as matter therefore energy cannot be infinite. Simple consequence of Einstein’s mass energy equivalence formula that shows Revelation 19:6 (KJV) is utter bollocks. Look up the meaning of the word omnipotent.

Not interested in the non “science” of the babble, the babble is known and proven to exaggerate and even lie, without independent corroboration it cannot be taken seriously.

Why do you lie? Like all good christards you have been learning from the babble and you don’t even realise it?

Einstein DID NOT believe in an Abrahamic god, he wrote “I believe in Spinoza's God (nature), who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

He expressed scepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, describing such as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously

In a letter recently sold he wrote "For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

He strongly objected to ignorant people like you making false and lying claims about his belief and he wrote “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

So stop lying for your god you ignorant prat, it just makes you look stupid and it makes belief in you god out to be a lie.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124032 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
While you have a point, you are throwing bricks in a glass house.
What point? He has often been caught out lying including the post to which you reply. Quote,“In virutally all you posts you call someone a "liar" endquote. Have I ever called you a liar? Or Kitten or Elohim or Chimney1 or SZ or Mugwump or LowellGuy or Ooogah Boogah. I only call liars liars and he is a prime mover and is often shown to lie. Funnily enough he even mocks the maths is use to base my opinion and he lies about the “documented” belief of the discoverer of that maths formula.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#124033 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true. All anyone needs do is to flip a coin for a year and see do themselves.
How many flips in a year, and how does that compare to the number of chances for elements of self-replicating RNA to combine naturally?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124034 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution can select a cell containing an advantageous nucleotide change. So this is false.
<quoted text>
. The geneticist Dr. J. C. Sanford stated that "no nucleotide is ever inherited independently. Each nucleotide is intimately connected to its surrounding nucleotides..."*

*Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Third Edition, 2005, p. 54
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#124035 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Listening to an idiot reiterate stupidity is for morons. Intelligent people realize such after the first line and ignore the rest, unless they just want to play.
Which is why we still talk to you.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#124036 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, properties of matter can be reduced to functions of probability.
No.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#124037 Mar 19, 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.
Wow. You can't be more wrong.

If there were a lottery with 1,000 balls, and you have to not only pick the 5 numbers drawn, but the order as well, is it possible to win with one ticket? I don't care how LIKELY it is...is it POSSIBLE?

Assuming you say it is, because it IS, it is admittedly very unlikely, so it would be an outrageous stroke of luck. But, nothing actually prevented you from choosing the right numbers in the right sequence. Nothing guarded that particular sequence of numbers from being chosen by you.

Let's now posit that you don't have just one ticket for this drawing, but instead have 100. Each ticket is randomly selected. Is it possible to win? It is more likely, admittedly.

Now, let's say that there are 100 people, each with 100 random tickets for the drawing. The odds of a winner increase, yes? Still possible, yes?

Now, let's say that each of the 100 people are not only playing 100 random tickets on the first game, but each of them is also playing 100 random tickets on each of 100 other games with the same rules. Still possible for one person to win once?

Now, let's say that this scenario is not for a single drawing, but rather for one drawing per minute, with random tickets for all the games generated every time, and the games will be drawn for the next billion years. The likelihood of a single winner gets even better. Still possible, yes?

To make I i.possible in any of these scenarios, something has to bar the player from choosing a particular sequence of numbers. Probability doesn't protect winning sequences from being chosen. Random sequences are random. There's no number genie keeping the winning sequences safe from being chosen. Dow winning to be impossible, something has to prevent winning sequences from being on the tickets.

Your argument is it's impossible for unlikely things to occur because they are unlikely. But, given enough opportunity, the likelihood gets better and better. That is probability.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#124038 Mar 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You can't be more wrong.
If there were a lottery with 1,000 balls, and you have to not only pick the 5 numbers drawn, but the order as well, is it possible to win with one ticket? I don't care how LIKELY it is...is it POSSIBLE?
Assuming you say it is, because it IS, it is admittedly very unlikely, so it would be an outrageous stroke of luck. But, nothing actually prevented you from choosing the right numbers in the right sequence. Nothing guarded that particular sequence of numbers from being chosen by you.
Let's now posit that you don't have just one ticket for this drawing, but instead have 100. Each ticket is randomly selected. Is it possible to win? It is more likely, admittedly.
Now, let's say that there are 100 people, each with 100 random tickets for the drawing. The odds of a winner increase, yes? Still possible, yes?
Now, let's say that each of the 100 people are not only playing 100 random tickets on the first game, but each of them is also playing 100 random tickets on each of 100 other games with the same rules. Still possible for one person to win once?
Now, let's say that this scenario is not for a single drawing, but rather for one drawing per minute, with random tickets for all the games generated every time, and the games will be drawn for the next billion years. The likelihood of a single winner gets even better. Still possible, yes?
To make I i.possible in any of these scenarios, something has to bar the player from choosing a particular sequence of numbers. Probability doesn't protect winning sequences from being chosen. Random sequences are random. There's no number genie keeping the winning sequences safe from being chosen. Dow winning to be impossible, something has to prevent winning sequences from being on the tickets.
Your argument is it's impossible for unlikely things to occur because they are unlikely. But, given enough opportunity, the likelihood gets better and better. That is probability.
You seem to think that millions of years is the panacea for overcoming all improbabilities. You don't have "infinite" time. If man evolved from apes, at most 400,000 generations were available to create and incorporate millions of favorable mutations. Have you ever critically looked at the math?
Urban Cowboy

Arlington, VA

#124039 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. Many of them could not have formed in flood conditions but require dessication (drying out). Others are fine shales requiring huge amounts of time with still water to settle. Others are the remains of creatures that if alive at the same time, would have choked the oceans three miles deep, "shoulder to shoulder". Instead they had to exist for millions of years with slow deposition. Your response to this can be summed up as "one petrified hat".
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
With great patience, you have been given rational explanations for every single item above, cheap shots to the minimum. You want to go through them AGAIN?
On the other hand, you continually throwing this debunked crap at me still does not explain in creationists terms the question I asked you...
"The order of burial does NOT match any conceivable "creationist" criterion such as running speed, natural altitude adaptation, or any other criterion that could fit the record into a fairy tale about escaping rising flood waters."
Regurgitating debunked claims to avoid examining this properly is just a red herring because you know you cannot explain it.
I appreciate you keeping the cheap shots to a minimum. But you're still wrong about it.

Tell you what, demonstrate how all the fossils formed without rapid burial. Tell us all how any creature could fossilize slowly over millions of years. Give us the scenario how this could possibly happen. Tell us how, for example, a fish, reptile, bird, or mammal died and what the circumstances were;, i.e., old age, sickness, hit on head with a rock, eaten by a predator (no, that wouldn't work), Hit by lightning, drowned, whatever. And then tell us how all the scavengers and decomposers, rain, sun, and wind, decompositiona and rot was ALL avoided but instead, over many years it was covered over by dust which formed a "geological layer" (LOL!- sorry, can't keep from laughing) And then another thousand, 10, 20, 100, 1000, years goes by and at SLOWLY becomes fossilized (ROTFLMAO!), and then FINALLY, after untold millions of years it finally becomes a fossil in its geologic layer of time. OMG Chimney how could you believe this crap?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#124040 Mar 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What point? He has often been caught out lying including the post to which you reply. Quote,“In virutally all you posts you call someone a "liar" endquote. Have I ever called you a liar? Or Kitten or Elohim or Chimney1 or SZ or Mugwump or LowellGuy or Ooogah Boogah. I only call liars liars and he is a prime mover and is often shown to lie. Funnily enough he even mocks the maths is use to base my opinion and he lies about the “documented” belief of the discoverer of that maths formula.
Christine, you
have already exposed yourself as a consummate liar. Hence, your incessant branding of others. Anyone who states that he "knows" that there is no god is a liar. My advice to you is to go into a closet somewhere and hide.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#124041 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate you keeping the cheap shots to a minimum. But you're still wrong about it.
Tell you what, demonstrate how all the fossils formed without rapid burial. Tell us all how any creature could fossilize slowly over millions of years. Give us the scenario how this could possibly happen. Tell us how, for example, a fish, reptile, bird, or mammal died and what the circumstances were;, i.e., old age, sickness, hit on head with a rock, eaten by a predator (no, that wouldn't work), Hit by lightning, drowned, whatever. And then tell us how all the scavengers and decomposers, rain, sun, and wind, decompositiona and rot was ALL avoided but instead, over many years it was covered over by dust which formed a "geological layer" (LOL!- sorry, can't keep from laughing) And then another thousand, 10, 20, 100, 1000, years goes by and at SLOWLY becomes fossilized (ROTFLMAO!), and then FINALLY, after untold millions of years it finally becomes a fossil in its geologic layer of time. OMG Chimney how could you believe this crap?
One more thing...
Tell us how huge intact skeletons in large numbers were deposited in a single formation.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124042 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Christine, you
have already exposed yourself as a consummate liar. Hence, your incessant branding of others. Anyone who states that he "knows" that there is no god is a liar. My advice to you is to go into a closet somewhere and hide.
I am simply stating facts, the fact that I have no tolerance for lies probably has something to do with my highlighting the point that you are a liar for your god. Quite obviously a point of view that you do not like.

Anyone who states that he "knows" that there is a god is a liar.

My advice to you is to read a couple of decent, educational books

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124043 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One more thing...
Tell us how huge intact skeletons in large numbers were deposited in a single formation.
What single formation?

You are obviously as clueless of geology as you are of the babble and that it fooking clueless.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min DanFromSmithville 35,683
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min ATHEOI 15,029
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min THE LONE WORKER 199,551
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min MIDutch 151,388
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 21 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 22 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 23 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web