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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126018 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The 100,000 nucleotide was very generous on the side of evolution...
Can you cite an article since that refutes that claim?
The simplest known self replicating life form is Mycoplasma genitalium.
It has over 500,000 base pairs in its DNA.
Since you're devoted to adhering to experimental science, then you need to do either one of two things..,
1. Show how simple chemistry can create self replicating DNA 500,000 base pairs in length from scratch.
2. Show experimentally how any life form with simpler DNA could survive and self replicate.

Okay, it time for another round of NAME THAT LOGICAL FALLACY.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126019 Mar 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
If you don't believe in creationism, tell me which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Duh.

Simplest logical problem of all time.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126020 Mar 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>why? please explain.

Seriously?

Like I said "duh!"

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126021 Mar 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Egg, of course.

Even a creationist should be able to figure that out, right?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126022 Mar 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity is not a thing. Quit trying to make it a thing.
Complexity isn't going to happen.
I explained the physics book. If you didn't understand it (obviously) then just say so.
No, I didn't understand the physics book.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126023 Mar 29, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>why? please explain.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/t...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126024 Mar 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The egg. Duh.
Simplest logical problem of all time.
Yes, it"s "simple" if you believe evolutiondidit with pixie dust.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126025 Mar 29, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Egg, of course.
It's not obvious to those who understand biology.
An egg is equally complex as a chicken.
They both contain chicken DNA.

Level 2

Since: Aug 12

Adana, Turkey

#126026 Mar 29, 2013
Nope , shouldnt .
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126027 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not obvious to those who understand biology.
An egg is equally complex as a chicken.
They both contain chicken DNA.
Define complexity in quantitative in relation to the chicken and egg

Thanks in advance

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126028 Mar 29, 2013
Above should be

Define complexity in quantitative TERMS in relation to the chicken and egg

Thanks in advance
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126029 Mar 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Define complexity in quantitative in relation to the chicken and egg
Thanks in advance
I won't bother unless at first you acknowledge that a 300 page book of physics is more complex than 300 pages of random letters.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#126030 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not obvious to those who understand biology.
An egg is equally complex as a chicken.
They both contain chicken DNA.
Not if the parent of the egg was one or two mutations away from being a chicken as you define "chicken".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126031 Mar 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
Your posting of an irrelevant link was a cowardly evasion of intellectual responsibility. You were asked why the egg came first. That is a question that has plagued philosophers for centuries. The link said nothing in response to the question.
DarwinBots are fond of copying and pasting... Because they cannot logically defend any of their beliefs.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126032 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not obvious to those who understand biology.
An egg is equally complex as a chicken.
They both contain chicken DNA.
If you had an understanding about the evolution of birds ("chickens"), then you would know why we say "the egg".

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126033 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't understand the physics book.

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

If it cannot be interpreted then it is not information.
So is sandstone information?
Is it more or less information than a physics book.

Of course it can't be called "complex" since that term is meaningless without an anticedent noun or noun phrase to help describe.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126034 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it"s "simple" if you believe evolutiondidit with pixie dust.

That makes no sense. Your are just spewing your atheist, godless worldview again.

The egg comes before the chicken.

DUH!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126035 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not obvious to those who understand biology.
An egg is equally complex as a chicken.
They both contain chicken DNA.

Non sequitur.


It is a logic problem, not a biology problem. And your answer is wrong anyway.


BTW,
All things in the universe are equally complex and
all things in the universe are not equally complex.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126036 Mar 29, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Define complexity in quantitative in relation to the chicken and egg
Thanks in advance

LOL. Are you going to make our little puppet dance for us?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126037 Mar 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I won't bother unless at first you acknowledge that a 300 page book of physics is more complex than 300 pages of random letters.

Without a definition of "complex" to the above situation it is impossible to tell which is more complex.

That should be obvious to anyone who understands English.

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) 6 min Dogen 81,506
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 54 min Science 2,188
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 59 min Science 32,892
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 12 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 12 hr Science 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 18 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web