Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 6,377)

Showing posts 127,521 - 127,540 of168,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130761
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Do you? Based on your comments, you have no problem insulting and mocking and generally causing trouble all the time. This seems to be a common denominator amoung evolutionists. LIke Mike, "Pissing people off" and your headline meant to provoke a reaction for your "Evotrolling" pleasures. Disgusting behavior.
Nobody likes a crybaby, Urb.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130762
May 20, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody likes a crybaby, Urb.
Then stop crying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130763
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop crying.
Weak.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130764
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Glen Kuban's Web site? LOL! There are so many errors in there I wouldn't know where to begin.
Oh, but I insist!
Please.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130765
May 20, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It's pretty hard to identify when a beneficial mutation is
has been created, but microbiology has spotted a few. Mostly the presence of such mutation goes unnoticed or undiscovered as such.
But Our DNA has shown us certain markers of their history.
We call them ERVs and these are the signs of positive mutations that occurred. Here is one that is identified as a ongoing gradual implement of our genome. But without modern techniques of discovery, it too would have never been realized.
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/1/155
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/1/155
What logical reason is there to assume that natural selection can "see" what man cannot see?
What logical reason do you have to conclude that a randomly inserted segment of viral genome could impart funcitonality to an organism?
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130766
May 20, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Improbability is not a mechanism. Leaves defy probability every time they fall. Not to mention, accumulation is not an effect based on probability, it either happens or it doesn't. So, again, what is the mechanism that prevents changes from accumulating into more definable differences?
You should really consider actually learning about science some day, because I don't think you even know what a mechanism is.
Your logic is convoluted.
I don't need to point to a "mechanism" to prove that something is impossible. I'm indicating that the mechanims that you propose is flawed because it is too improbable.
Leaves do not defy probability when they fall, becaue there is a stastirical certainty that they will fall randomly. You are in effect denying that there is any order to living theings.

Why can't we observe the evolution of ape to humans today? Because more time is required for improbable mutations to occur. Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130767
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm being honest. You are in some sort of delusional denial. If accumulating genetic VSDM's aren't - OK we can call it what ever you like besides entropy - then WHAT IS IT?
It seems whenever we point out the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room you evotards simply lash out, refusing to see it. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Pure projection from you here.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130768
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.
Again, you're assuming that "Human" was the goal of the diversification that began with the common ancestor of present day H.Sapiens and our other Ape cousins 4-6 mya.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130769
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is convoluted.
I don't need to point to a "mechanism" to prove that something is impossible. I'm indicating that the mechanims that you propose is flawed because it is too improbable.
Leaves do not defy probability when they fall, becaue there is a stastirical certainty that they will fall randomly. You are in effect denying that there is any order to living theings.
Why can't we observe the evolution of ape to humans today? Because more time is required for improbable mutations to occur. Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.
If something happens, you have to provide mechanisms that influence and effect it matching the assertions you make on it. Changes happen, they accumulate, what mechanism prevents that accumulation from causing the species to become a completely different one eventually?

Yes, leaves defy probability, the chances of a leaf landing in a particular spot are so astronomically miniscule as to be incalculable, that means, no chance at all, or by your logic, impossible. Yet, they land in those specific spots every time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130770
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is convoluted.
I don't need to point to a "mechanism" to prove that something is impossible. I'm indicating that the mechanims that you propose is flawed because it is too improbable.
Leaves do not defy probability when they fall, becaue there is a stastirical certainty that they will fall randomly. You are in effect denying that there is any order to living theings.
Why can't we observe the evolution of ape to humans today? Because more time is required for improbable mutations to occur. Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.
But all you do is to claim that evolution is improbable. You never give any evidence for that. Whenever you have made specific arguments they have been quickly debunked.

We know evolution happens, we can see it happening in several different ways.

We know that there are winners to the various lotteries, it happens several times a year.

Can both events be said to be improbable?

Yes.

Do both events happen?

Indubitably, yes.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130771
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If something happens, you have to provide mechanisms that influence and effect it matching the assertions you make on it. Changes happen, they accumulate, what mechanism prevents that accumulation from causing the species to become a completely different one eventually?
Yes, leaves defy probability, the chances of a leaf landing in a particular spot are so astronomically miniscule as to be incalculable, that means, no chance at all, or by your logic, impossible. Yet, they land in those specific spots every time.
Your leaf analogy is absurd, because falling leaves are random and DNA is not.
Would you be surprised if a monkey sitting at a keyboard created a best-seling novel? After all, a monkey can radnomly type keys... it's been proven. Furthrermore, according to your convoluted logic, any sequence that he created in restrospect would have been extremely improbable.
Your are simply denying the existence of order and complexity. YOu are saying that a textbook of physics is fundamentally no different than hundreds of pages of random letters.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130772
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your leaf analogy is absurd, because falling leaves are random and DNA is not.
Would you be surprised if a monkey sitting at a keyboard created a best-seling novel? After all, a monkey can radnomly type keys... it's been proven. Furthrermore, according to your convoluted logic, any sequence that he created in restrospect would have been extremely improbable.
Your are simply denying the existence of order and complexity. YOu are saying that a textbook of physics is fundamentally no different than hundreds of pages of random letters.
You are mixing arguments and both of your arguments have flaws. Random events can still affect nonrandom objects. Your complaint about the analogy is baseless.

Second with your monkey example you are making a classic creationist error. You are forgetting about natural selection, or in the case of the monkeys some form of artificial selection. If you leave selection out of the argument you are forgetting half of the driving force of evolution and will naturally come up with the wrong answer.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130773
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your leaf analogy is absurd, because falling leaves are random and DNA is not.
Would you be surprised if a monkey sitting at a keyboard created a best-seling novel? After all, a monkey can radnomly type keys... it's been proven. Furthrermore, according to your convoluted logic, any sequence that he created in restrospect would have been extremely improbable.
Your are simply denying the existence of order and complexity. YOu are saying that a textbook of physics is fundamentally no different than hundreds of pages of random letters.
Falling leaves is the perfect analogy for all things natural. Also, they are not random, the forces of nature dictate precisely where they will land, but you perceive it as random because the calculations are too complex for the brain to complete them. But the chance of a leaf landing in one spot is impossible by your logic, yet, in spite of you claiming it's impossible it happens all the time. You fail to grasp the significance because you are too busy denying science instead of studying it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130774
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
Yes, leaves defy probability, the chances of a leaf landing in a particular spot are so astronomically miniscule as to be incalculable, that means, no chance at all, or by your logic, impossible. Yet, they land in those specific spots every time.
I would think the probability would be very high. Anyway, there was nothing new made by the leaf hitting the ground. Pointless analogy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130775
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think the probability would be very high. Anyway, there was nothing new made by the leaf hitting the ground. Pointless analogy.
Yes, the odds that any leaf will hit a chosen spot is very high. The odds of a specific leaf hitting a specific spot are very very low. A

And something new is made when the leaf hits the ground.

Perfect analogy. You are being willfully blind again Urb.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130776
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the odds that any leaf will hit a chosen spot is very high. The odds of a specific leaf hitting a specific spot are very very low. A
And something new is made when the leaf hits the ground.
Perfect analogy. You are being willfully blind again Urb.
If a monkey sitting at a keyboard created French poetry, would that be any more inprobable than him creating random letters?
Explain your answer.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130777
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Falling leaves is the perfect analogy for all things natural. Also, they are not random, the forces of nature dictate precisely where they will land, but you perceive it as random because the calculations are too complex for the brain to complete them. But the chance of a leaf landing in one spot is impossible by your logic, yet, in spite of you claiming it's impossible it happens all the time. You fail to grasp the significance because you are too busy denying science instead of studying it.
Where did these "forces of nature" come from and how does it dictate precisely? Are you implying that it has a goal in mind?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130778
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If a monkey sitting at a keyboard created French poetry, would that be any more inprobable than him creating random letters?
Explain your answer.
What is the point of your question?

There is no point in running an analogy unless it is a valid one. If you want to compare this to evolution you need some sort of selection.

There is no point in participating in an obviously failed analogy on your part.
Mugwump

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130779
May 20, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If a monkey sitting at a keyboard created French poetry, would that be any more inprobable than him creating random letters?
Explain your answer.
As has been pointed out - you are missing out the 'selection' element.

I am purposefully putting 'selection' in quotes as fully aware you are itching to compound you incomplete analogy with an incorrect conclusion

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130780
May 20, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think the probability would be very high. Anyway, there was nothing new made by the leaf hitting the ground. Pointless analogy.
No, the probability is infinitesimal, consider that the chances of it landing in a specific spot are calculated based on all known location in which a leaf could land, including the Moon. That's how statistical odds are tabulated.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 127,521 - 127,540 of168,622
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••