Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124608 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's another evo-fallacy...
That humans lived in caves due to being close to being sub-human
That's another reason to laugh at evo-tards
Oh! The desperation!
Rusty fail, that is not what she meant.

Try again.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124609 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell, once again I need to remind you. You have shown that you do not know what evidence is. To make it worse you are unwilling to learn.
Therefore you cannot demand evidence. You can ask nicely and if none is given all you can do is sulk.
If you want to demand evidence you have to learn what it is first.
I asked, as wide eyed and eager as Sponge Bob, how there is no erosion between Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale....eager and willing to learn....

...and what did I get?

Nothing...

Stony silence..

So why bother offering to "teach" me and then when I do ask, simply not bother?

I am confused...

I also asked where the evidence for your alleged "many false steps" was....and again....for all the world to see....stony silence .....and no evidence

Its so sad, really...

So teach me...

Where is the erosion between Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale in the knife edge-paraconformity that has supposed 6-10 million years between them?

Picture here:

http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124610 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
You're wrong....
That's just the usual nonsense from you that I have growth accustomed to
No evidence...
Just nonsense
How am I wrong tard?

They know how to submit a paper for peer review. Most of them have done so. Many of them have been successful for their noncreatard based work.

They can submit a paper based on creationism, there is nothing stopping them from doing that. In all odds they will not be published. If their is bias it will be apparent in their reasons that they rejected the paper.

Even one of the contributors here tried to submit an article for peer review based upon his insanity. The reasons it was rejected were clearly not based upon bias. Shoob the Boob might thinks so but he would not be able to sell that to the general public.

Creationists know that their is no bias. It would be apparent in the rejection. Papers are not just rejected by peer reviewed journals. The writers are told why they are rejected. Very often they are given a chance to fix their errors.

Creation scientists know this and yet they do not submit papers.

They know that in reality they are not biased.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124611 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to learn what qualifies as evidence and why. Otherwise you will simply deny the evidence when it is given to you.
If an idiot is going to deny undeniable evidence when it is presented to him would you bother?
Has anyone answered this challenge as yet?

Or am I just flapping in the wind as usual surrounded by evo-tards who "see" evolution happening everywhere but are unable to provide a skerrick of evidence?

----------
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I await ANY evidence
----------
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to be provided with ANY evidence of single celled organisms becoming multicellular, thence proceeding from invertebrates to vertebrates and WESTWARD HO! to mammals including man
If such evidence exists, would you kindly make it available to me forthwith?
No delays...
Forthwith!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124612 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I think "This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes" is quite clear
You don't think this is quite clear?
How about-->
"....and exhibited organelle-like microstructures"
What are they, pray tell?
----------
Mild tachycardia...
Sympathetic nervous system activated...
Mild diaphoresis....
Clammy...
Once again, the structures are preserved not the actual cells. Notice how clearly they always add the word "like" when they are describing the structures. How much more clearly does it have to be laid out for you.

Osteocyte like, not osteocytes. When you take a mold of an object the mold is not the original object. How much more clearly does it have to be laid out for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124613 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
OK
Have a look at picture of them...you may even go Wiki!
I will allow it....just this once...
They're identical
And BTW
Not knowing is OK
Its not the end of the world
You're not expected to know everything
And just 'cos Shrieking Pigeons does not have any info on this topic does not invalidate my question
I am not an expert. The experts can spot the differences. Go talk to an expert.

You are clearly not an expert. You are an idiot.

Please don't forget that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124614 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked, as wide eyed and eager as Sponge Bob, how there is no erosion between Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale....eager and willing to learn....
...and what did I get?
Nothing...
Stony silence..
So why bother offering to "teach" me and then when I do ask, simply not bother?
I am confused...
I also asked where the evidence for your alleged "many false steps" was....and again....for all the world to see....stony silence .....and no evidence
Its so sad, really...
So teach me...
Where is the erosion between Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale in the knife edge-paraconformity that has supposed 6-10 million years between them?
Picture here:
http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...
There is erosion between the two. I even posted evidence for it but you ignored it.

And since it is evidence I posted it at my convenience not yours.

It is not my fault if you don't know what erosion would look like on a sea level surface.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124615 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Has anyone answered this challenge as yet?
Or am I just flapping in the wind as usual surrounded by evo-tards who "see" evolution happening everywhere but are unable to provide a skerrick of evidence?
----------
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I await ANY evidence
----------
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to be provided with ANY evidence of single celled organisms becoming multicellular, thence proceeding from invertebrates to vertebrates and WESTWARD HO! to mammals including man
If such evidence exists, would you kindly make it available to me forthwith?
No delays...
Forthwith!
Nope, all creatards have been too afraid or too stupid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

You could be a first Rusty. There will be a test at the end.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124616 Mar 22, 2013
By the way Rusty, evidence has been provided many times.

You are too blind and too prejudiced to see it.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124617 Mar 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>We are discussing DNA, not carbon atoms...so dispense with your irrelevant analogies.
SZ says DNA is not a blueprint.
That is asinine.
He cannot explain who or what is making decisions to follow the recipe.
If DNA is a flexible "recipe", how do you explain identical twins?
It wasn't an analogy, but a distillation of your argument to it basic principles.

You are saying 'DNA is a complex code - so someone/something must be interpreting the syntax/rules'

I am saying atomic bonding also follows a defined syntax/rules - whilst the rules are less complex, unless you can show a cutoff of complexity (or even define complexity quantatatively) the question applies to both scenarios.

And identical twins ????? I presume that was an example of Oz humour

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124618 Mar 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>We are discussing DNA, not carbon atoms...so dispense with your irrelevant analogies.
SZ says DNA is not a blueprint.
That is asinine.
He cannot explain who or what is making decisions to follow the recipe.
If DNA is a flexible "recipe", how do you explain identical twins?
If it were not a flexible "recipe" all full blooded brothers would be exactly alike.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124619 Mar 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect!! I am only "unfamiliar" with "science" that is based on the 6,000 year old earth assumption. That's because it is BS and not worth anyone's time.
You are clearly not familiar with ANY science as science requires testability & repeatability

Where has animalutionism been tested and verified?
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124620 Mar 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were not a flexible "recipe" all full blooded brothers would be exactly alike.
Expression of alleles

That's all

That ain't animalutionism

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124621 Mar 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were not a flexible "recipe" all full blooded brothers would be exactly alike.
Nor would you be able to clone animals, like has been done with "Dolly" the sheep.

HST will very often amaze me with statements that show why somebody, and it was not me, came up with a very apt explanation of what HTS is an anagram of.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124622 Mar 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Millions of years of animal breeding will clearly negate his point.
And yes I have seen dead things on the sea floor too far down for large scavengers to disturb. And so .... what???
So where in the rich history of animal breeding have genetic constraints been overwhelmed or overreached?

All animals is themselves alone
Cows is cows
Horses is horses
Dogs is dogs

As I have said many times before...

Drosophila melanogaster should be an elephant with external testicles by now....
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124623 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor would you be able to clone animals, like has been done with "Dolly" the sheep.
HST will very often amaze me with statements that show why somebody, and it was not me, came up with a very apt explanation of what HTS is an anagram of.
And why have you named yourself "mud"...

I'll never understand you SubDud.....never

What has cloning a sheep got to do with genomic constraints?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124624 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly not familiar with ANY science as science requires testability & repeatability
Where has animalutionism been tested and verified?
animalutionism?

You making up your own words now?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124625 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly not familiar with ANY science as science requires testability & repeatability
Where has animalutionism been tested and verified?
Fine, then reproduce a planet with life on it as diverse as Earth that's only 6,000 years old.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124626 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are clearly not familiar with ANY science as science requires testability & repeatability
Where has animalutionism been tested and verified?
No where!! It is is a creoturd fantasy concept. It has nothing to do with anything let alone evolution. So what?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124627 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So where in the rich history of animal breeding have genetic constraints been overwhelmed or overreached?
All animals is themselves alone
Cows is cows
Horses is horses
Dogs is dogs
As I have said many times before...
Drosophila melanogaster should be an elephant with external testicles by now....
99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, even the ancestor species for all life that exist today. Is that enough overwhelming and overreaching for you?

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) 2 min Science 67,215
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Confucius 368
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,955
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web