Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180366 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.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#130827 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing to prove "mathematically." We see changes in the genetic material between offspring and parent. That is evolution. Things evolve.
You are joking right?? That is the DUMBEST thing I have ever read! DUH!!!! Two different parents from two different generation history’s, two different DNA and two different everything (get the picture yet) of course the kids are going to be a little different from EACH parent. LMFAO
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130828 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, we know everything evolves, we see it, we record it, we track it, we keep very meticulous records on the modern lineage of any living organism now. That is how we know for a fact that the cheetah is going extinct due to a bottleneck the species had in recent history, their genetic material is unstable because of this bottleneck, not enough versatility, and thus, not fit enough to survive much longer.
You don't "know everything evolves."
You IMAGINE that everything evolves.
You know that bacteria mutate.
You know that sickle cell trait confers resistance to falciparum malaria.
You know that bacteria can metabolize citrate after 31,500 generations in a controlled laboratory environment.
Etc., etc.

You do not "know" that man evolved from a microbe.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130829 May 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How quickly you forget, SZ.
Just moments ago you failed miserably in your theatrics to explain away why evolution doesn't require acceptance of probability concepts.
I challenged you to demonstrate how a single proposed mechanism of evolution was mathematically possible, and you admitted that you didn't have any numbers, suggesting to me that I should just forget science and accept your stories on faith in the evo-fairy.
Fool, I didn't forget anything.

When something is observed you don't have to demonstrate how it is mathematically possible.

How would you demonstrate that it is mathematically possible for something to fall without using the theory of gravity?

When something is observed to happen many many times in many many ways there is no need to see if it is mathematically possible. It is now incumbent upon the deniers to show that it is mathematically impossible.

And how many times have you failed at that?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130830 May 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know everything evolves."
You IMAGINE that everything evolves.
You know that bacteria mutate.
You know that sickle cell trait confers resistance to falciparum malaria.
You know that bacteria can metabolize citrate after 31,500 generations in a controlled laboratory environment.
Etc., etc.
You do not "know" that man evolved from a microbe.
No, we can "see" the evolution. Creatards just don't like the methods we use for seeing.

Too bad, you guys don't even understand the basic concept of science. You lose.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130831 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are joking right?? That is the DUMBEST thing I have ever read! DUH!!!! Two different parents from two different generation history’s, two different DNA and two different everything (get the picture yet) of course the kids are going to be a little different from EACH parent. LMFAO
Your reaction is pretty dumb.

You've been given the basic mechanism for evolution, if you had the brains to see it.

Every generation is a little bit different from that before it. THose changes ACCUMULATE over the centuries and millennia.

Eventually, some members of that species have become so different that they do not any longer mate with the other parts of the species.

Therefore, a new species has evolved out of the old.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130832 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For MIke, who never believes me:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Was that supposed to support your 'consensus' assertion?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#130833 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How quickly you forget, SZ.
Just moments ago you failed miserably in your theatrics to explain away why evolution doesn't require acceptance of probability concepts.
I challenged you to demonstrate how a single proposed mechanism of evolution was mathematically possible, and you admitted that you didn't have any numbers, suggesting to me that I should just forget science and accept your stories on faith in the evo-fairy.
And all I need you to do is show us the math behind the probability of spaghetti getting mushy when it's boiled for 15 minutes. Show me the probability equations and you win.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130834 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are joking right?? That is the DUMBEST thing I have ever read! DUH!!!! Two different parents from two different generation history’s, two different DNA and two different everything (get the picture yet) of course the kids are going to be a little different from EACH parent. LMFAO
If evolution did not happen, and your mythology was real, then everyone came from the same two people. Wow, you are an idiot. We'd all look the same if there was no change in the genetic material. Go back to your cave, troll, adults are talking.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#130835 May 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are joking right?? That is the DUMBEST thing I have ever read! DUH!!!! Two different parents from two different generation history’s, two different DNA and two different everything (get the picture yet) of course the kids are going to be a little different from EACH parent. LMFAO
Wow, you really are stupid.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130836 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know everything evolves."
You IMAGINE that everything evolves.
You know that bacteria mutate.
You know that sickle cell trait confers resistance to falciparum malaria.
You know that bacteria can metabolize citrate after 31,500 generations in a controlled laboratory environment.
Etc., etc.
You do not "know" that man evolved from a microbe.
Nope, you admitted everything evolves. that the genetic material changes with each offspring. So either everything is clones of their parents, or they evolve, which is it?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#130837 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't "know everything evolves."
You IMAGINE that everything evolves.
You know that bacteria mutate.
You know that sickle cell trait confers resistance to falciparum malaria.
You know that bacteria can metabolize citrate after 31,500 generations in a controlled laboratory environment.
Etc., etc.
You do not "know" that man evolved from a microbe.
Everything that reproduce and competes for limited resources evolves.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130838 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How quickly you forget, SZ.
Just moments ago you failed miserably in your theatrics to explain away why evolution doesn't require acceptance of probability concepts.
I challenged you to demonstrate how a single proposed mechanism of evolution was mathematically possible, and you admitted that you didn't have any numbers, suggesting to me that I should just forget science and accept your stories on faith in the evo-fairy.
Wrong, you failed to address anything that is actually scientific.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130839 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that supposed to support your 'consensus' assertion?
No, wiseass. It means your precious theory is in deep doo-doo.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130840 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, you failed to address anything that is actually scientific.
Yet you make these bold proclamations like, "THE FORCES OF NATURE DICTATE PRECISELY". And then when I ask you where you came up with such nonsense you accuse me of raising the bar. You're about as far removed from the scientific method as one can get!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130841 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we can "see" the evolution. Creatards just don't like the methods we use for seeing.
Too bad, you guys don't even understand the basic concept of science. You lose.
SZ, you lost the argument on mathematics.
Now you're moving the goalposts again.
You think everyone should just blindly accept your evo-fairytales on faith. No scientific explanations required.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130842 May 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything that reproduce and competes for limited resources evolves.
..And as far as we know from many years of scientific genetic lab research, it all stays the same species, Right?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130843 May 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything that reproduce and competes for limited resources evolves.
You know nothing about biology if you would make such an asinine statement.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130844 May 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And all I need you to do is show us the math behind the probability of spaghetti getting mushy when it's boiled for 15 minutes. Show me the probability equations and you win.
Now you're really getting desperate, LG...comparing the complexity of biologic systems to mushy spaghetti.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130845 May 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything that reproduce and competes for limited resources evolves.
Parroting dogma is not science.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130846 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you admitted everything evolves. that the genetic material changes with each offspring. So either everything is clones of their parents, or they evolve, which is it?
The problem with you evolutionists is that you dumb everything down too much. You oversimplify and over generalize. Yes, of course, everything changes, everything evolves. But there are many degrees of this and one must be more specific for the statement to have any useful meaning. Evolve, evolving, and even evolution are not bad words; I don't have a problem with the words themselves. It's the way they are abused and the way evolutionists equivocate by abusing them is the problem. Distinguishing micro from macro is helpful but amazingly, the evolutionists are offended by this because they see it as a threat to their grand deception.

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
What's your religion? 3 hr Subduction Zone 125
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Subduction Zone 5,005
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 85,630
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 hr ChristineM 165,438
Humans evolved from Canadians Sat Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species Sat Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Sat was auch immer 10
More from around the web