Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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

Mandan, ND

#124989 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not lie.
you are too stupid to lie.
Here is the reference.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Notable_Cha...
You posted another link that you didn't understand.
Chuck saw racism as a logical conclusion of evolution.
If you can't defend something yourself, don't hide behind links.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124990 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just as good as an atheist
Who knows what you believe....
You don't

LOL.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124991 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong

Wrong.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124992 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is by definition.
Do you have proof that every offspring is transitional?
Are you saying that every unchanged offspring of sharks for the past three hundred million years is transitional?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124993 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here he goes...
Quoting himself again
C'mon
Don't make me do all the work
Summarise it

The first link is very short. The reading level is very low. Even you might understand it.

Maybe.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a dumbass. You will do anything to avoid actual knowledge, won't you.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an easy peasy intro.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1 ...
More info:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ ...
And a good book (no, I have not read it).
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Evolutionary ...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124994 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you're read the links, then why don't you logically defend your position?

I was not defending a position. I was providing a reference to someone who did not know what Evolutionary Medicine was.

I know, right. Like who does not know what E.M. is! Next thing you know I will have to tell a creationist what a Nephrologist does.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124995 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In spite of you aimless ramblings, you haven't told me how a belief in evolution is necessary in understanding flu vaccines.
I understand flu vaccines, and I don't accept Darwinism.

What you have just told me is that you don't understand evolution.

Definition:
Evolution: the change in a population over time.

If the influenza virus (technical term for the flu..... I don't want to lose you) changes over time then it, by definition, evolved.

This ain't exactly psychiatry.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#124997 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
But racism is a science topic, is it?

More like a social topic.

Come on. This ain't exactly rocket science.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124998 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The first link is very short. The reading level is very low. Even you might understand it.
Maybe.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a dumbass. You will do anything to avoid actual knowledge, won't you.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an easy peasy intro.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1 ...
More info:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ ...
And a good book (no, I have not read it).
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Evolutionary ...
Good

Then it should be easy to summarise

Do it
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124999 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not defending a position. I was providing a reference to someone who did not know what Evolutionary Medicine was.
I know, right. Like who does not know what E.M. is! Next thing you know I will have to tell a creationist what a Nephrologist does.
So

What is evolutionary medicine?

I've never heard of this

It sounds quite ridiculous

But pray tell....

What is it?
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125000 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
More like a social topic.
Come on. This ain't exactly rocket science.
Good

Then you agree that creation.com is a good reference
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125001 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Russel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =GDBJTGfZnEAXX
I don't watch trash
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125002 Mar 24, 2013
In response to defending Haeckel, SZ says this--->
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because he was correct in some of his claims.
Like Hitler?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not an all or nothing idiot like creatards are. A person can be correct in some views and wrong in others.
For example Newton was very correct on his physics, for which he is rightfully famous. He was not correct in his beliefs on alchemy, for which no one pays any attention.
And then he rejects ANYONE who is a scientist who also believes in creation and is a Christian

It would not take me long at all to gather up the evidence from his numerous previous posts where this trait is displayed in glaring black and white
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125003 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell...
You're being very nice to LowellGuy... attempting to spare him embarrassment.
He's drunk on evo-koolaid and needs to sober up.
He has peach fuzz...what am I to do?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125004 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If tiktaalik and homo erectus are all you can come up with... You're really desperate.
Only one was requested. I gave more than twice what was asked for.

Damn creatards, always moving the goal posts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125005 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Nope, be definition he is right.

Since evolution is constantly occurring technically all fossils are transitional fossils.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125006 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is dogma, not science.
And you are of course an idiot too.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125007 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
So SZ
Still ignoring inconvenient posts?

Just to remind you of the horror...for lazy bones...>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414624
Hey tard, why did you link the same abstract twice?

If you read the articles on how the chemicals react they do not react to cells. They react to proteins associated with those cells. And they do not claim actual cells, they always use wording like this:

" exhibited organelle-like microstructures". Never organelle, always organelle-like.

I bet that you still don't get it.

It is an interesting problem in paleontology and nothing more.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125008 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
In response to defending Haeckel, SZ says this--->
<quoted text>
Like Hitler?
Well since Hitler was one of you guys I suppose you could try to defend him in the same way, but I wouldn't.

But since you are claiming that Hitler was right sometimes how was he right?
<quoted text>
And then he rejects ANYONE who is a scientist who also believes in creation and is a Christian
It would not take me long at all to gather up the evidence from his numerous previous posts where this trait is displayed in glaring black and white
Now that is a lie. I have said countless times that when creationism is not involved there are some creationist scientists who can do science. What they cannot do is science involving creationism. They fall flat on their faces every time they try it. And they know it. Thanks to you we now know how Sanford tried to avoid the peer review process when he published his book.

I have to thank you for that since I did not know the details of how dishonest Sanford was.

So are you done lying for the night? I doubt it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125009 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't watch trash
That must make it rather difficult to shave in the morning.

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
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 12 min Science 108
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 33 min Science 164,685
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 37 min Science 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 56 min Science 83,115
Evolution is boring as Hell 1 hr Science 6
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 1 hr Science 122
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 1 hr Science 31
More from around the web