Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

One way or another

United States

#124152 Mar 19, 2013
Hahahaha, the Evo morons will twist everything. They hate the truth and science.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124153 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I refuted him merely by reading his book and seeing the faults, one after another.
But YECs and other cultists never read Sanford critically. They just show their hunger for any argument that sounds superficially convincing, by their uncritical acceptance of his flawed arguments. Its always the same with you guys. You hold onto bad arguments so desperately that if you ever had a good one, you have blown any chance of being taken seriously out of the water.
Anyway, Sanford has been refuted by actual experiment, something I was not aware of when I argued against his poor logic and selective use of the facts for over two years, blow by blow. Much simpler.
I read Origin of Species and I refuted Chuck Darwin, point by point.
I also read Sanford, and he was dead right. His conclusions have not been scientifically refuted. That experiment you sited proved nothing. You have no idea how to objectively evaluate an experiment. That is because you're drunk on atheist kool-aid. Your religion has taken precedence over all objectivity. You simply accept whatever propaganda is fashionable.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124154 Mar 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it!! Religion is for monkeys. Science is for humans with reasoning power. Good going, monkey boy!
Darwinian evolution is a bona fide religion.
There is no science whatsoever that can validate any of its precepts.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124155 Mar 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Also uber-stupid. Well done.
If genetically inferior seeds glowed in the dark, they Could be preferentially eaten by predators, dumbass.
You really don't understand any of this, do you?
As usual, Mike...
You are incapable of any coherent logic.
I realize that I have assaulted your cherished religion of atheism, but you shouldn't take it personally.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124156 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Anyway, Sanford has been refuted by actual experiment, something I was not aware of when I argued against his poor logic and selective use of the facts for over two years, blow by blow. Much simpler.
It's amusing to listen to you accuse Sanford of "selective use of the facts"...
That is one of the great fallacies of Darwinism... Filtering evidence.

Example: Stephen J. Gould:

"Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for evolution... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution).

*Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," National History, 1993, p. 15

So Gould, one of your own high priests, admitted that paleontology is composed of filtered evidence.

Here's another interesting observation....

Dr. Steven Stanley, an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist, admitted,

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.”

*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman & Co., 1079, P. 39.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124157 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Hahahaha, the Evo morons will twist everything. They hate the truth and science.
Sorry,I know you have said you won't respond to me directly because I hate science so much.

But presume you are suggesting I have misrepresented your new science - in which case can you point out my misunderstanding.
One way or another wrote:
Spin dizzy earth
Science by Jim Ryan
Ask any person to spin around 30 times and see what happens as they spin on their feet at maybe 3 miles an hour.
Then all we need do is consider how the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in a circle and yet, none show signs of dizziness or sickness from such.
The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.
Any extra spin creates dizziness at the least, implying a pretty delicate balance, but hey, can you or science or anyone give a better reason for such.
Specifically
One way or another wrote:
Spin dizzy earth
Science by Jim Ryan

The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy.
Now my question was how come we DON'T observe this - in actual fact observation isn't necessary - nerves :-

1) are cells
2) are attached to various anchor points in the body

Therefore can't spin continuously (as would have to to match the earths spin)

Now I don't keep raising this to make you look stupid - you need no help from me - but more to attempt to point out that

Your new science as you put it doesn't match reality
Although you insist science is dishonest and not open to question / rational argument - you are guilty of the same

So - any response Mr Ryan - please try - it may be your salvation

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124160 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
New thinking begets more new thinking. However, walking out on that limb is fraught with peril and ridicule. If it weren't, anyone could do it. Research is the key. Find what is not spoken of and speak to that.
So ... when do you actually do any research?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124161 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinian evolution is a bona fide religion.
There is no science whatsoever that can validate any of its precepts.
So where is the evidence of any alternative you have that explains the diversity, and similarity, of the various species on the planet?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124162 Mar 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you are assuming that evolution has a direction. It does not. The path of evolution is a drunkard's reel guided by natural selection. There are many false steps on the way.
You continue to fail at math and at evolution.
What are these false steps?
Where is the evidence of false steps in the fossil record?

If you're thinking of Drosophila melanogaster with a set of feet growing out of its eyes....which you would never think of.....then you're wrong anyway

By the way you have yet to explain the absence of 6-10 million years of erosion between Hermit shale and Coconino sandstone
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124163 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So where is the evidence of any alternative you have that explains the diversity, and similarity, of the various species on the planet?
. You've fallen prey to the classic fallacy of the false alternative. I don't need to come up with an alternative hypothesis to prove a scientific theory wrong.
This is what you DarwinBots constantly do... You attempt the impossible... To disprove God.
You think that by ridiculing religion you provide evidence for a scientific theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124164 Mar 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What are these false steps?
Where is the evidence of false steps in the fossil record?
If you're thinking of Drosophila melanogaster with a set of feet growing out of its eyes....which you would never think of.....then you're wrong anyway
By the way you have yet to explain the absence of 6-10 million years of erosion between Hermit shale and Coconino sandstone
Russell, now you are trying to compare evolution to forced mutation.

Go back to school strawman fallacies do not work here.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124165 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Talking to idiots is like pulling teeth.
Dec 6, 2012 – Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary ... the inner ear sensory cells that detect sound and sense balance.... and pathways in individual inner ear cell types that are likely to ...
Not just any cells you morons.
Ok - and point out where this indicates rotation of the cells?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124166 Mar 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, now you are trying to compare evolution to forced mutation.
Go back to school strawman fallacies do not work here.
So
To what false steps do you refer?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124167 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Talking to idiots is like pulling teeth.
Dec 6, 2012 – Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary ... the inner ear sensory cells that detect sound and sense balance.... and pathways in individual inner ear cell types that are likely to ...
Not just any cells you morons.
In fact let me post your link for you as you seem to be unable to

http://dms.hms.harvard.edu/neuroscience/fac/C...

Now explain how this supports your 'new science' about how cells spin to offset the effect of the earths rotation.

You up for the task of defending your 'new science' yet?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124168 Mar 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
To what false steps do you refer?
Many of them would not even be born. If a mutation is severe enough it simply ends up in a stillbirth.

Some branches quickly die out. Again, not too many fossils would be left behind.
One way or another

United States

#124169 Mar 19, 2013
Idio-ts are so funny.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#124170 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Idio-ts are so funny.
Yet everyone laughs at you.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124171 Mar 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of them would not even be born. If a mutation is severe enough it simply ends up in a stillbirth.
Some branches quickly die out. Again, not too many fossils would be left behind.
Evidence of this happening over millions of years please?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124172 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. You've fallen prey to the classic fallacy of the false alternative. I don't need to come up with an alternative hypothesis to prove a scientific theory wrong.
This is what you DarwinBots constantly do... You attempt the impossible... To disprove God.
You think that by ridiculing religion you provide evidence for a scientific theory.
No, for a theory to be overturned you need an alternative.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#124173 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, for a theory to be overturned you need an alternative.
Kitten, if you don't mind me saying so, not only do you need an alternative HYPOTHESIS to overturn an accepted theory, you need a superior one.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 16 min Dogen 1,418
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min u196533dm 32,462
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Genesis Enigma 163,074
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web