Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130853 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So you have no intention of backing up your 'consensus' comment. No surprise.
no, I see. you don't read anything I post anyway

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130854 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
no, I see. you don't read anything I post anyway
On the contrary, I usually do.

So your 'consensus' was just bullshit. Figures.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130855 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You admitted everything evolves too, you cannot recount that. If a biological organism's DNA changes, that's called evolution.
Even if one conceded that "everything evolves"...
How does that prove than man evolved from a microbe?

All humans can run...
Does that prove that all humans can run 50 miles an hour?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130856 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, wiseass. It means your precious theory is in deep doo-doo.
ROTFLMAO!

Nobody tells jokes like the Urb and How's That for Stupid team!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130857 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Three lies in one post. Good one How's That.

You never beat me in a mathematical argument. You lost all of them with me. That can be shown by how you changed your attempts to argue mathematically.

I did not move the goal posts. Now you are simply parroting an expression that you obviously do not understand.

Third, no, I think people should accept evolution since it is the only idea that has scientific evidence that supports it. But you are a total retard that refuses to even learn what is and what is not evidence.

The first triple fail of the day definitely earns an "How's That for Stupid?"
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130858 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I usually do.
So your 'consensus' was just bullshit. Figures.
No, you are bs.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130859 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO!
Nobody tells jokes like the Urb and How's That for Stupid team!!
?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130860 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if one conceded that "everything evolves"...
How does that prove than man evolved from a microbe?
All humans can run...
Does that prove that all humans can run 50 miles an hour?
That alone doesn't, fool. To understand that all life is related you have to look at all of the evidence. KittenKoder pointed out that you already admitted that evolution occurs. If you admit that it occurs then you have already admitted microbe to man, even if you do not want to admit it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130861 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
?
Stop, stop!!

I am still laughing.

Your "Who, moi?" approach is not bad either.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130862 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are bs.
Wow, you're really running on empty. You can't back up your assertions so I'm the bullshitter. It really pisses you off when you get cornered, doesn't it?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130863 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Third, no, I think people should accept evolution since it is the only idea that has scientific evidence that supports it. But you are a total retard that refuses to even learn what is and what is not evidence.
?"
You have arbititrarily dismissed intelligent design as "unscientific".
Therefore, you are left with only one choice...evolution.
That is not science...it's religion.
A scientists looks at all of the evidence. He doesn't fix a pre drawn conclusion and force all of his observations into that paradigm.
You fail to see that you have no scientific evidence.
You have nothing more than recylced dogma that has been soundly debunked over and over again.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130864 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That alone doesn't, fool. To understand that all life is related you have to look at all of the evidence. KittenKoder pointed out that you already admitted that evolution occurs. If you admit that it occurs then you have already admitted microbe to man, even if you do not want to admit it.
Parroting cheap dogma is not science.
If you claim that man evolved from a microbe, then prove it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130865 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have arbititrarily dismissed intelligent design as "unscientific".
Therefore, you are left with only one choice...evolution.
That is not science...it's religion.
A scientists looks at all of the evidence. He doesn't fix a pre drawn conclusion and force all of his observations into that paradigm.
You fail to see that you have no scientific evidence.
You have nothing more than recylced dogma that has been soundly debunked over and over again.
No, not arbitrarily. Quit using words that you do not know the meaning of:

"Definition of ARBITRARY

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2
a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee>
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary —"

IDiocy is rejected because it is not science. It has no testable claims and almost every absolute claim ever made has been busted.

Evolution of the eye is too complex, busted long ago. So they learned from that. They got tougher questions.

Behe liked to claim that there were no scientific papers explaining the evolution of the blood clotting system. He claimed it was "irreducibly complex". He was almost buried by a fort of papers and books on that topic at the Dover trial. That is the trial where he lost all scientific credibility. Only morons who put god before clear thinking pay him any attention these days.

A third was the bacterial flagellum. A complex spinning little motor that looked impossible to solve. Guess what, it has been solved. Step by step they know how it evolved from the proteins involved. I am feeling generous, since a topic like this would involve multiple scientific papers, which have been written, I can link a simple video that explains it. I don't think the creatards could understand it but other could. Any requests, even those from our creatards friends to see this video will be honored.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130866 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Parroting cheap dogma is not science.
If you claim that man evolved from a microbe, then prove it.
Then why is that all that you can do?

I have offered to help you learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can debate better.

Most people are not idiots like you and Urb. They know that scientists will not believe something because of "dogma". They know that scientists are an evidence seeking group. When you lie and say there is no evidence it is clear to them that you are either a liar, an idiot, or both.

I am constantly offering to cure the idiot side of you. I can't stop you from lying, but almost anybody can learn if they try.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130867 May 21, 2013
And one more time How's That for Stupid, you never ever tell someone to "prove it" in science. You ask him what his evidence is.

Too bad you have limited that right for yourself.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130868 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And one more time How's That for Stupid, you never ever tell someone to "prove it" in science. You ask him what his evidence is.
.
You're kidding, right?
Science doesn't require proofs?
Have you every heard of the scientific method?
You have a hypothesis... nothing more
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130869 May 21, 2013
“Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious. And it is this deleterious effect that I want to discuss.

“The ideas that I am presenting are not new. Some go back to early in the century, but the evidence has been strengthened in recent times. In this review, I shall draw on the work of many who have contributed to this history.“

“The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.”

“A dominant mutation producing a very large effect, perhaps lethal, affects only a small number of individuals before it is eliminated from the population by death or failure to reproduce. If it has a mild effect, it persists longer and affects a correspondingly greater number. So, because they are more numerous, mild mutations in the long run can have as great an effect on fitness as drastic ones.”

“As mentioned earlier, most mutations—if they have effects large enough to be detected phenotypically—are deleterious. This means that they occur and persist in the population until they are removed by natural selection. The greater the average deleterious effect of the mutation, the shorter time it will persist before being eliminated. A recessive mutation may remain hidden in the population for a very long time, since it can be eliminated only when homozygous.”

“In both flies and people, recessive mutations may persist for thousands of generations. But the evidence is strong that the great majority of mutations are partially dominant, so that heterozygotes show some decrease in fitness.”

“This seems like a large mutation load, even for flies, and would surely be an excessive load for the human population. Furthermore, it is likely that our total mutation rate is greater than that of flies. So, we have a problem.”

“It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating.”

“I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. But this is a problem with a long time scale; the characteristic time is some 50–100 generations, which cautions us against advocating any precipitate action.”

-The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health&#8201;risk? James F. Crow PNAS, vol. 94 no. 16
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130870 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you're really running on empty. You can't back up your assertions so I'm the bullshitter. It really pisses you off when you get cornered, doesn't it?
Cornered? How? Do you really think there is a competent geneticist out there that doesn't believe the human race is genetically degenerating due to rapid mutation accumulation and relaxed natural selection pressure (Crow, 1997)? There isn't any articles that I could find that refute Crow. He published in a peer-reviewed journal. I also produced several other often cited articles by Kondrashov, and several others that indicate the same thing. You're just playing silly games and have no interest in science. All you want to do is dick around and play childish gotcha games. You're being ridiculous. Why not ask why these scientists are reporting it instead of trying to avoid the obvious with silly child games? Aren't you at all interested? How can you not have an opinion? Just an nah-ahh you lied? Grow up already. Read the damn article. Get off your butt and research it yourself and show them they're wrong or shut up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130871 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding, right?
Science doesn't require proofs?
Have you every heard of the scientific method?
You have a hypothesis... nothing more
Yes, I have heard of the scientific method. You clearly haven't.

Proof is for mathematics and booze.

No, we have a strongly tested and very well accepted theory.

A hypothesis is a "baby theory". It is a theory that has not been tested yet. If you test your hypothesis successfully it is on its way to being a theory.

The theory of evolution has been tested millions of times without a significant failure. Ever.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130872 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Since <Snip of unsupported claims>16
Urb, you know how to link and you know the creatard rule for linking.

Why did you post this garbage without a link to show where it came from?

Ah yes, because you know it is not valid.

Thank you Urb.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min It aint necessari... 216,729
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min One way or another 48,577
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 49 min Knowledge 154,701
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 15 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web