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

Englewood, CO

#130180 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor can you demonstrate it is mathematically IMpossible, since the process of evolution is undirected and not moving toward any specific goal, so there are no specific mathematical parameters you can nail down in order to perform your BS "calculations."
Typical atheist BS.
You assume that skeptics should blindly acccept your religion without scientific explanations.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130181 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Harmful mutations tend, over the long term, NOT to accumulate, because they present a barrier to reproduction.
Gilette, how many times to I need to remind you that STORYTELLING IS NOT SCIENCE.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130182 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical atheist BS.
You assume that skeptics should blindly acccept your religion without scientific explanations.
No, I'm asking YOU to provide mathematical calculations first, so we can take them apart, piece by piece and show what a Jesus Freak FOOL you are.

We have TONS of scientific evidence FOR evolution.

You have a weak-minded, literal interpretation fo your bronze Age fable, the BuyBull, which you claim is, somehow, scientific or displaces the findings of modern science.

Prove it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130183 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about ape-human evolution. If an ape inherits 175 mutations, you need to explain how those mistakes in replication result in human intelligence.
That's not what you said. Go back and read ti again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130185 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical atheist BS.
You assume that skeptics should blindly acccept your religion without scientific explanations.
You not a skeptic. You're a contrarian. There's a difference.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130186 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You not a skeptic. You're a contrarian. There's a difference.
That's right. If he genuinely WERE a "skeptic," he probably could not read his Holy BuyBull with a straight face.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130187 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You not a skeptic. You're a contrarian. There's a difference.
I don't blindly swallow the atheist BS that man evolved from a worm. That makes me a "contrarian"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130188 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm asking YOU to provide mathematical calculations first, so we can take them apart, piece by piece and show what a Jesus Freak FOOL you are.
We have TONS of scientific evidence FOR evolution.
You have a weak-minded, literal interpretation fo your bronze Age fable, the BuyBull, which you claim is, somehow, scientific or displaces the findings of modern science.
Prove it.
I provided mathematical calculations, and all you can do is throw a hissy fit.
Then you predictably resort to the "scientific evidence" that you believe exists to support your bedtime stories. Regardless of how much evidence you present "for" evolution... all is in vain, because one insurmountable flaw demolishes the theory, as Chuck Darwin well understood. That is a fundamental principle of science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130189 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't blindly swallow the atheist BS that man evolved from a worm. That makes me a "contrarian"?
It is your absurd twisting of truth that makes you a contrarian. For instance, equating atheism with science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130190 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, the incessant parroting of dogma is not science.
You keep saying that it has been "shown" that random mutations produced complexity.
No, stories have been proliferated, but no experimental evidence has been published.
All you're doing is trying to diffuse probability challenges through the twisted logic of atheism.
You state that man evolved from a worm. It's up to you to prove mathematically that such an asinine proposal is within the reach of chance.
Then why do you keep parroting dogma?

I tell you what, try to ask one clear proper question and I will answer it for you. If you fail to understand the answer then you don't get anymore answers until I feel like it again.

So go..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130191 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided mathematical calculations, and all you can do is throw a hissy fit.
Then you predictably resort to the "scientific evidence" that you believe exists to support your bedtime stories. Regardless of how much evidence you present "for" evolution... all is in vain, because one insurmountable flaw demolishes the theory, as Chuck Darwin well understood. That is a fundamental principle of science.
No, you provided mathematical nonsense that was easily debunked.

Once again your last attempt had a fatal flaw.

Do you know what that fatal flaw was? It is very much laid out there.

By the way, you have not provided any evidence. Perhaps if you knew the definition of evidence you would not keeping making these idiotic mistakes. The offer for a lesson on evidence is still open. It is no longer a free class. You need to offer an apology for being an idiot first.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130192 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you keep parroting dogma?
I tell you what, try to ask one clear proper question and I will answer it for you. If you fail to understand the answer then you don't get anymore answers until I feel like it again.
So go..
I gave you a clear proper question.
How can you justify proposed mechanisms of evolution through probability calculations, given the rarity of mutations.
All you have done thus far is parroted dogma.
Show me the math... Give me an explanation that honestly confronts probability challenges. That's all I'm asking.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130194 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your absurd twisting of truth that makes you a contrarian. For instance, equating atheism with science.
I never equated atheism with science.
You're confusion evolutionary biology with "science".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130195 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a weak-minded, literal interpretation fo your bronze Age fable, the BuyBull, which you claim is, somehow, scientific or displaces the findings of modern science.
I've never posted what my religious beliefs are. How do you know that I embrace a literal interpretation of Genesis?
Like all evo-morons, you make unwarranted assumptions and believe that you're being objective.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130196 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, you have not provided any evidence. Perhaps if you knew the definition of evidence you would not keeping making these idiotic mistakes. The offer for a lesson on evidence is still open. It is no longer a free class. You need to offer an apology for being an idiot first.
Since you repeatedly insist that you are an expert on what constitutes "evidence", explain to me why homology should be considered as scientific evidence for evolution...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130197 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you a clear proper question.
How can you justify proposed mechanisms of evolution through probability calculations, given the rarity of mutations.
All you have done thus far is parroted dogma.
Show me the math... Give me an explanation that honestly confronts probability challenges. That's all I'm asking.
And I gave you a proper answer. There are more than enough positive changes to allow evolution. There are no problems from a probability point of view.

Now before we go on and expand that, what did you do wrong in your last "mathematical proof"?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130198 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you repeatedly insist that you are an expert on what constitutes "evidence", explain to me why homology should be considered as scientific evidence for evolution...
Because by the definition of scientific evidence it is evidence for evolution.

Remember, to learn what scientific evidence is you have to apologize for being an idiot first. Your own actions have led to my refusal to help you any further than to give you the answer. To understand it you have to pony up the fee.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130199 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never equated atheism with science.
You're confusion evolutionary biology with "science".
Macht nichts. Regardless of your opinion of evolutionary biology, it still isn't atheistic.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130200 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I provided mathematical calculations, and all you can do is throw a hissy fit.
Actually, no. We refuted your "probability calculations" BS by pointing out that 1.) your math is absurd and faulty because you incorrectly assume evolution has a pre-planned outcome, and 2.) you cannot possibly know all the factors involved in constructing such an equation. So therefore, you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE evolution through such a calculation.

I just exhaled a breath in which there were probably billions of molecules of CO2. Let's pick ONE of those specific molecules of CO2 I just exhaled.

What is the probability calculation that that ONE MOLECULE -- out of all the countless CO2 molecules on earth -- would end up floating in front of my face. Impossible odds right?

Yet there it is! LOL!

Let us know when you finally realize what is faulty about the above equation and thus faulty about your own bullshit "calculation."
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130201 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no. We refuted your "probability calculations" BS by pointing out that 1.) your math is absurd and faulty because you incorrectly assume evolution has a pre-planned outcome, and 2.) you cannot possibly know all the factors involved in constructing such an equation. So therefore, you cannot PROVE or DISPROVE evolution through such a calculation.
I just exhaled a breath in which there were probably billions of molecules of CO2. Let's pick ONE of those specific molecules of CO2 I just exhaled.
What is the probability calculation that that ONE MOLECULE -- out of all the countless CO2 molecules on earth -- would end up floating in front of my face. Impossible odds right?
Yet there it is! LOL!
Let us know when you finally realize what is faulty about the above equation and thus faulty about your own bullshit "calculation."
False analogy, Gilette.
The one CO2 molecule you picked was random, and there was a statistical certainty that a random molecule of CO2 would be picked. A random CO2 molecule has no information or predictability.
DNA is not a random hodgepodge of nucleotides, regardless of your rellativistic worldview. According to your perverse logic, any complexity could be argued to arise by chance. You simply deny that probability barriers exist.

If that is so, why do evolutionists require over one billion years for DNA to self-organize. Why can't it be accomplished in five minutes?

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
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 13 min Zog Has-fallen 46
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 27 min dark chocolate 3,292
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 33 min lightbeamrider 83,935
Time 4 hr Beagle 3
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Genesis Enigma 164,943
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
More from around the web