Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126226 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I dismiss the geologic column with one wave of the hand because it is a huge unweildy paradigm founded upon layers and layers of unprovable assumptions...

You have not even looked at the links provided for you.

Dunce.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> First and foremost... That radiometrically dating rocks provides a reference as to when sediment was deposited and when animals perished.

True. Radiometric dating is ONE OF the ways we know the age of fossils.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The 200 years of validation that you image is nothing more than assumptions propping up other assumptions.

Again, you have nothing. The science has been provided and you ignored it in favor of your own, unsubstantiated beliefs.

You should learn from science...

Remember when Russell fumbled all over himself in his horsecrap attempt to debunk the geologic column several days ago with the research on T.Rex DNA in "67 million year old strata".

Remember how stupid he looked when it was demonstrated he was full of hot air and his own "sources" did not support nor agree with him.

Good times.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126227 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me scientific research that validates that claim.

We can lead a jackass to the research, but we can't make him read nor understand it.

Voice of experience talking here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126228 Apr 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
This is a demand for evidence. You have voided your right to demand evidence.
Learn what scientific evidence is first. Then make your demands.

He also needs to promise to look at it.

Understanding it is a bit to much to hope for, however.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126229 Apr 1, 2013

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126230 Apr 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Wow.

What a maroon.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126231 Apr 1, 2013
How can anybody not believe in intelligent design? The complexity of animal life cries out that there's a creator. I could understand evolution itself if there was only plant life but how do you explain the development of complex organs like eyesight, hearing, and especially the brain? God said the atheist is a fool and they are very ignorant there is a God and if you don't believe it, that's the belief that will get you sent to hell.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126232 Apr 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can lead a jackass to the research, but we can't make him read nor understand it.
Voice of experience talking here.
Both you and SZ refuse to validate your statements with proof. Hence, your argument is debunked.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126233 Apr 1, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
What a maroon.
You say that, but isn't it just a bit depressing really?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126234 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Both you and SZ refuse to validate your statements with proof. Hence, your argument is debunked.
Errhh, aren't you the guy that stated you had scientific evidence of the existence of god but refused to present it?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126235 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
How can anybody not believe in intelligent design? The complexity of animal life cries out that there's a creator. I could understand evolution itself if there was only plant life but how do you explain the development of complex organs like eyesight, hearing, and especially the brain? God said the atheist is a fool and they are very ignorant there is a God and if you don't believe it, that's the belief that will get you sent to hell.
Quick question

Explain why evolution can't be a method of an intelligent design
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126236 Apr 1, 2013
There was both creation and evolution. The creation of the universe was set in motion in six literal days and has been evolving for 42,000 years. In the process of time life has evolved. Each day was 6000 years and we're living in the seventh day. We've just passed a new cycle on the Mayan and Jewish calendars and when the Messiah comes it will be a new day. "Noticias de manana" News of tomorrow.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126237 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Both you and SZ refuse to validate your statements with proof. Hence, your argument is debunked.
Wrong. I have at offered to give you evidence. I only have one very reasonable request that you must fill out before you get that evidence.

You will not comply.

Therefore all of your claims are debunked.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126238 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
How can anybody not believe in intelligent design? The complexity of animal life cries out that there's a creator. I could understand evolution itself if there was only plant life but how do you explain the development of complex organs like eyesight, hearing, and especially the brain? God said the atheist is a fool and they are very ignorant there is a God and if you don't believe it, that's the belief that will get you sent to hell.

Didn't we deal with these nonsense arguments 150 years ago?

oh right, it was actually longer than that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126239 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Both you and SZ refuse to validate your statements with proof. Hence, your argument is debunked.

You don't get that you're the jackass, do you?


You aren't even a good creotard. You are like a cliche of a creotard.

Go learn some science and come back when you grow up.





Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can lead a jackass to the research, but we can't make him read nor understand it.
Voice of experience talking here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126240 Apr 1, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question
Explain why evolution can't be a method of an intelligent design

Here is an even harder one. What can't an honest creationist be an ID advocate?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126241 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
There was both creation and evolution. The creation of the universe was set in motion in six literal days and has been evolving for 42,000 years. In the process of time life has evolved. Each day was 6000 years and we're living in the seventh day. We've just passed a new cycle on the Mayan and Jewish calendars and when the Messiah comes it will be a new day. "Noticias de manana" News of tomorrow.

We can lead a jackass to the research, but we can't make him read nor understand it.

BTW, are you on shrooms or e-Crack?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126242 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
Indeed, but as above, nobody is arguing they occurred at the same time or even that the intermediate functions provided were the same as the "final" result.
<quoted text>
That does not follow from the first point. Some advantage, no matter how small, and not necessarily toward the "final" adaptation, will be amplified in the population, and further changes will build on that.
You have imagined laws of genetics that don't exist. You are failing to acknowledge the sophistication of the genetic code. DNA is a multidimensional code that exhibits language type functionality with multiple levels of overlapping messages, intricate algorithms, and data compression. It cannot be changed by rearranging a few nucleotides or base substitutions. Yes, antibiotic resistance in bacteria can evolve one nucleotide at a time. However, the capacity of a spider to spin a web cannot be reduced to incremental changes as you imagine.

You're guilty of the same fallacy of falsely extrapolating simplicity to complexity.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126243 Apr 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get that you're the jackass, do you?
You aren't even a good creotard. You are like a cliche of a creotard.
Go learn some science and come back when you grow up.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We can lead a jackass to the research, but we can't make him read nor understand it.
Voice of experience talking here.
Dogen, does it make you feel smart to post such worthless, meaningless posts?
Do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously, when all you offer is the same recycled atheist BS?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126244 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have imagined laws of genetics that don't exist. You are failing to acknowledge the sophistication of the genetic code. DNA is a multidimensional code that exhibits language type functionality with multiple levels of overlapping messages, intricate algorithms, and data compression. It cannot be changed by rearranging a few nucleotides or base substitutions. Yes, antibiotic resistance in bacteria can evolve one nucleotide at a time. However, the capacity of a spider to spin a web cannot be reduced to incremental changes as you imagine.
You're guilty of the same fallacy of falsely extrapolating simplicity to complexity.
Well actually it can, and we know this for the simple reason that a huge number of versions of various proteins work just as well as each other. So specificity is not nearly as high as you imagine. There are an estimated 10^93 different recipes for cytochrome-c alone, and its a relatively small protein. That is one reason WHY we can track the random changes across the living kingdoms for this protein and see how the variation follows a nested hierarchy.

What "law of genetics" have I imagined?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126245 Apr 1, 2013
Of course HTS I mean possible recipes for cytochrome-c, as only a tiny subset of these are actually found in nature - the number is so huge. But we could take just about any one of the 10^93 possible variations and stick it in you and you would work just the same.

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
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 48,383
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,980
News Does Mike Pence Believe in Evolution? Thu scientia potentia... 9
More from around the web