Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124647 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly, he is.
I do wonder if some creationists are a self-parody

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124648 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I may not be brilliant
But I ain't THAT stupid
Seems you are tho'
----------
Horse evolution is an absolute nonsense
C'mon Mugwump..
Back me up, or I won't share the copyright
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/0...
http://creation.com/horse-evolution
Yes, you are indeed, that stupid. Your thesis totally ignores the fact that the different evolutionary stages of the horse were found at different layers in the fossil strata indicating different time periods.... but silly me, you are a creoturd ... you wouldn't think that way would you?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124649 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't think that Mugwump has any problems with me. I do believe that our two active tards do.
Not entirely sure why Russell suggests I am even slightly on his side , he also suggest the racist epithet is down to me as well - even though I continually point out he sounds like a 12 year old when he uses it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124650 Mar 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
I do wonder if some creationists are a self-parody
Too true sadly.

How often have I pointed out that their ideas are not backed up by scientific evidence and our are? How often have I offered to teach them what is evidence so that we could no longer claim that they deny evidence?

It seems that they want to remain purposefully ignorant of evidence.

Do they think that their god will ignore their lies when they claim that they did not know any better?

Why this strange fear of learning what is and what is not evidence?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124651 Mar 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are indeed, that stupid. Your thesis totally ignores the fact that the different evolutionary stages of the horse were found at different layers in the fossil strata indicating different time periods.... but silly me, you are a creoturd ... you wouldn't think that way would you?
I love it!

A new term "creoturd" even lower on the scum scale than a creatard.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124652 Mar 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously ????
A zygote (one set of DNA) splits into two embryos.
You can't be this stupid
Mugwump
If we're going to be partners you'll have to do better than this

That is precisely HTS's point

Nowithstanding independent assortment of alleles during meiosis, DNA is staggeringly faithfully replicated

Error correction occurs to prevent ...well, errors...

Which is extraordinary for a system that supposedly came about via errors

If DNA is not fixed..

What hope has RNA?



You're not a CREATION RACIST BIGOT(c) are you?

http://creation.com/more-marvellous-machinery...
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124653 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it!
A new term "creoturd" even lower on the scum scale than a creatard.
Says he whose has selected the name "mud" for himself...

I really will never understand you SubDud

Why not select a nice manly name like "Russell"?
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124654 Mar 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, bring it on - present your evidence for a god.
And note - I will hold it to the same standards you do of evolution I.e.
Dismiss it as being Christian mysoginistic bigotry
Dismiss it as being a Christian fairy tale.
Dismiss it as not being real science.
So go ahead
No

You really have to want this...

Otherwise it'll be more fun for me than you
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124655 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Identical twins have identical DNA. That does not mean that DNA is "inflexible code". You have not even defined "inflexible code". Once again it is better to think of it as a recipe. If you use the same recipe twice you will cook the same meal twice.
Change the recipe, but not the reader of the recipe and you will still have a different meal.
That so-called recipe is the DNA code
Known as a code since it requires translation
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124656 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a creationist. Why would I have "CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY". Since you are a creationist it seems you are much more likely to have that sickness.
Yes, CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY is a sickness

You have rightfully pointed out

But you are dead wrong about all the rest

Discrimination against creationist scientists is VERY real

As I have said and provided evidence for, a creationist scientist CANT get a letter to the editor published if he/she reveals he/she is a creationist, let alone a paper
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124657 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
You really have to want this...
Otherwise it'll be more fun for me than you
By which I presume you mean you don't have evidence of a god that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.

That's fine believe me - faith is just that and I have no issue with anyone who has a belief - just don't try pretend you have evidence.

So far we have you, HTS and UC that have insisted that they have evidence for a god - yet none have presented it - I suspect you will be a footnote in the list of bullshitters
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124658 Mar 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Identical twins have identical DNA. That does not mean that DNA is "inflexible code". You have not even defined "inflexible code". Once again it is better to think of it as a recipe. If you use the same recipe twice you will cook the same meal twice.
Change the recipe, but not the reader of the recipe and you will still have a different meal.
You haven't defined "recipe".
And you have dodged the fundamental question... If it is a "recipe", who or what is reading the recipe?

The existence of identical twins proves that DNA is an inflexible code, ie, only a single outcome is possible. You are attempting to argue the unarguable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124659 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY is a sickness
You have rightfully pointed out
But you are dead wrong about all the rest
Discrimination against creationist scientists is VERY real
As I have said and provided evidence for, a creationist scientist CANT get a letter to the editor published if he/she reveals he/she is a creationist, let alone a paper
If there is prejudice and bigotry against creationists you will have to prove it.

A bunch of idiots claiming that others are discriminating against them without any real evidence is not proof.

Once again, I know that you creatards cannot get a paper published with creatardism in it. You can always submit it for publishing. If there is prejudice against creatards the evidence will be there in the reasons that the paper was rejected.

Your fellow creatards who have actually published papers when they used real science know this. They know how both the rejection and the acceptance process works at professional journals.

They also know that if there was bias against their creationism based papers they could show it by publishing both their articles and the reasons it was rejected together.

They do not do this because in reality they know there is no bias against creationism. There is only bias against idiocy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124660 Mar 22, 2013
Rusty, let me try to speak in Australian so that you understand what would happen when if a paper was sent in by a creationist using creationism.

Professional journals are much more patient and much more polite than I am.

If a creatard sent a paper to me my response would likely be:

"OI!!!! Watt is this shyte? Are you guys a bunch of spazos or what?"

Whereas a professional journal would tell you what theories were wrongly applied, if any, mistakes in formulas used etc.. Then they would likely say that they were rejecting it now, but would reconsider it if the mistakes were corrected. Remember that the people reading the article and judging it would be expert in the field of that article. So if the article as about Coelacanths they would find people who understood Coelacanths to read and criticize it, not people like me who will openly admit that they are not experts on Coelacanths.

If their reasons are bogus the writer of the paper should be able to show that when publishing his paper and the rejections on a creationist site. Of course he better not lie by omission or make other such mistakes or both he and the creationist site could be looking at a hell of a lawsuit.

At any rate if there is actual bigotry and prejudice against creationists it can be shown by the rejections that they receive.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124661 Mar 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't defined "recipe".
And you have dodged the fundamental question... If it is a "recipe", who or what is reading the recipe?
The existence of identical twins proves that DNA is an inflexible code, ie, only a single outcome is possible. You are attempting to argue the unarguable.
I used the word recipe because it is a much better word than "code". The reason I used the word recipe is that it tells the RNA transcription enzyme which molecules to add to the protein that is being built.

Don't tell me, let me guess. You ignored the link that I included, right?

All of that was laid out in the article.

And no, the presence of identical twins merely shows that if you use the same recipe twice you will cook the same meal twice. That is all identical twins are. No god magic required.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124662 Mar 22, 2013
How's That for Stupid. You might claim DNA is an "inflexible code" for one person, or in the case of identical twins, two people. But using the same RNA transcribers with a different set of DNA or a different recipe you will get a different person.

When they cloned Dolly the sheep they did not include the RNA transcription enzymes in the cloning process. Yet they got a genetically identical sheep.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124663 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That so-called recipe is the DNA code
Known as a code since it requires translation
So a recipe is a code since somebody has to read it?
Russell

Australia

#124664 Mar 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
By which I presume you mean you don't have evidence of a god that will stand up to scientific scrutiny.
That's fine believe me - faith is just that and I have no issue with anyone who has a belief - just don't try pretend you have evidence.
So far we have you, HTS and UC that have insisted that they have evidence for a god - yet none have presented it - I suspect you will be a footnote in the list of bullshitters
No
I am not prepared to provide evidence that the Lord is real, in order to win brownie points in a debate

You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart.(Jeremiah 29:13)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124665 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
I am not prepared to provide evidence that the Lord is real, in order to win brownie points in a debate
You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart.(Jeremiah 29:13)
Hmm, it seems Rusty is not a total moron.

It looks like he knows that there is no evidence for his God.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#124666 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY is a sickness
You have rightfully pointed out
But you are dead wrong about all the rest
Discrimination against creationist scientists is VERY real
As I have said and provided evidence for, a creationist scientist CANT get a letter to the editor published if he/she reveals he/she is a creationist, let alone a paper
Creationism is anti-scientific. If their field of research is something their religious beliefs somehow intersect with, their work is likely to be biased. Nevertheless, if their work conforms to journal article guidelines and can withstand peer-review, it may get published. But, that's hard and requires things like evidence and honesty, of which creationists tend to have very little.

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) 22 min One way or another 61,513
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 49 min THE LONE WORKER 220,692
One species or three 6 hr pshun2404 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr djc 160,326
Curious dilemma about DNA 10 hr Dogen 6
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Dogen 2,699
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 13 hr Dogen 28,323
More from around the web