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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131377 May 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one proven Fact that hasn't CHANGED that there is only ONE theory of evolution. The way you talk that should be an easy task for you to do. If you can't, then you show you have nothing but guesses and blah blah.
One proven fact that has not changed that supports the theory of evolution. OK, here it is, ready?

"There is no evidence the Abrahamic God or any other God exists."

That has not changed, ever. Happy now?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#131378 May 25, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
No one needs to use a bible to point out that evolution is religion.... It's only the desperate hope of the failing evolutionist to produce evidence... Along side The Big Bang and various failed Abiogenesis hypothesis, ToE is merely a broken model that is brought more and more in question every day...
In other words, you hate science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131379 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think millions of years will solve the problem.
Lenski, an intelligent human being, couldn't produce macroevolution in 50,000 generations, but you assume that natural selection can create man from apes.
What is the scientific logic behind your faith?
And all you have to do is say that whatever evolution you're seeing doesn't qualify as "macroevolution." Just tell us what prevents certain traits from being passed on to future generations from previous generations, and what prevents certain amounts of traits being passed on to future generations from previous generations.

You can't answer "probabilities." Why? Because DNA doesn't look at mathematics and say, "Oh, gee, look how improbable certain future outcomes are! Why, it's simply not realistic for me to pass on these traits." Traits get passed on. This you cannot deny. Multiple traits get passed on. This you also cannot deny. Traits vary. This you also cannot deny. When enough traits are passed on over time, you get whatever it is you deem to be "macroevolution." All you need to do is demonstrate the barrier that prevents certain traits, or certain amounts of traits, from being passed on. Do that, and you completely destroy the theory of evolution. You can't (you're far stupider than people who are also trying to do it, so it stands to reason that if they can't, you can't), but it might be fun to watch you try.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131380 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think millions of years will solve the problem.
Lenski, an intelligent human being, couldn't produce macroevolution in 50,000 generations, but you assume that natural selection can create man from apes.
What is the scientific logic behind your faith?
So you are saying this Lenski guy conducted reproductive experiments on humans for 50,000 generations, at least 100,000 years? Now, why does that make me think you are a liar?

“Understand people,”

Level 3

Since: Mar 08

do you.

#131381 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And all you have to do is say that whatever evolution you're seeing doesn't qualify as "macroevolution." Just tell us what prevents certain traits from being passed on to future generations from previous generations, and what prevents certain amounts of traits being passed on to future generations from previous generations.
You can't answer "probabilities." Why? Because DNA doesn't look at mathematics and say, "Oh, gee, look how improbable certain future outcomes are! Why, it's simply not realistic for me to pass on these traits." Traits get passed on. This you cannot deny. Multiple traits get passed on. This you also cannot deny. Traits vary. This you also cannot deny. When enough traits are passed on over time, you get whatever it is you deem to be "macroevolution." All you need to do is demonstrate the barrier that prevents certain traits, or certain amounts of traits, from being passed on. Do that, and you completely destroy the theory of evolution. You can't (you're far stupider than people who are also trying to do it, so it stands to reason that if they can't, you can't), but it might be fun to watch you try.
You have a good argument in that DNA lacks a consciousness that enables such outcomes. But the probability idea could have some validity, too.

Since DNA is made of different types of chemicals/atomic traits, whatever, it could be possible that those chemicals, throughout time, have reached a point in time where they had began to react with one another in a fashion which had not been performed prior to that point in time.

Space and time might be the cause of the 'probability' but even so, the order in which they react, no matter what point in time the stimulus occurs, has a specific standard in which it manifests its behavior.

What had made that standard? Natural selection is too ambiguous of a term because what had made these selections available to become in the first place? No matter what point in time these selections have been 'selected', they will still react in an orderly fashion.

This I believe is the link between evolution and creationism.
Though, creationism can only be understood from what we see had evolved. In the same way, evolution stems from what has been made to be created to be evolved over time.

Catch 22, but interesting.
One way or another

United States

#131382 May 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying this Lenski guy conducted reproductive experiments on humans for 50,000 generations, at least 100,000 years? Now, why does that make me think you are a liar?
Your above post shows what a moron you really are.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131383 May 26, 2013
UnderstandPeople wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a good argument in that DNA lacks a consciousness that enables such outcomes. But the probability idea could have some validity, too.
Since DNA is made of different types of chemicals/atomic traits, whatever, it could be possible that those chemicals, throughout time, have reached a point in time where they had began to react with one another in a fashion which had not been performed prior to that point in time.
Space and time might be the cause of the 'probability' but even so, the order in which they react, no matter what point in time the stimulus occurs, has a specific standard in which it manifests its behavior.
What had made that standard? Natural selection is too ambiguous of a term because what had made these selections available to become in the first place? No matter what point in time these selections have been 'selected', they will still react in an orderly fashion.
This I believe is the link between evolution and creationism.
Though, creationism can only be understood from what we see had evolved. In the same way, evolution stems from what has been made to be created to be evolved over time.
Catch 22, but interesting.
You're trying to tell us that the laws of chemistry are variable. As soon as you can demonstrate this, it will be given consideration. Until then, it is dismissed without evidence, as you have presented no evidence.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#131384 May 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure? The difference that he made could be said to be as significant as the differences between us and other apes..
SZ...Are you SERIOUS?
You would site citrate utilization as comparable to ape/human transmutation?
You also ignore than bacteria reproduce asexually, which would make macroevolution far easier than in higher animals.
You need to seriously consider the enormous complexities of nature and stop glossing over them to accomodate your religion.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131385 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, yet, not a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article makes note of such a thing. Is that all part of the grand atheistic conspiracy?
You're forgetting that creation science journals ARE peer reviewed, and there are several fine papers that say just that. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.(Denial of Facts - part of the grand atheistic conspiracy.)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131386 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're forgetting that creation science journals ARE peer reviewed,
This would be a lie!

They are ALWAYS "critically" reviewed by other "creationists" who believe the same "literal and inerrant" bronze age fairy tale.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>and there are several fine papers that say just that.
Written by other "creationists" who believe the same "literal and inerrant" bronze age fairy tale.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.(Denial of Facts - part of the grand atheistic conspiracy.)
Along with the VAST majority of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucianists, Daoists, Shinto, Sikhs, Pagans, Wiccans, etc..

Why do you always call it an atheistic conspiracy when you know full well that the VAST majority of people who believe in a god or gods, who follow a religion, who do NOT call themselves atheists, fully accept the ToE and think your "fundamentalist xristian creationism" is bat sh!t crazy?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131387 May 26, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying this Lenski guy conducted reproductive experiments on humans for 50,000 generations, at least 100,000 years? Now, why does that make me think you are a liar?
Hmmm now that I think about it, 50,000 generations would be 1,000,000 years ... that doesn't make you look any better though.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131388 May 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ...Are you SERIOUS?
You would site citrate utilization as comparable to ape/human transmutation?
You also ignore than bacteria reproduce asexually, which would make macroevolution far easier than in higher animals.
You need to seriously consider the enormous complexities of nature and stop glossing over them to accomodate your religion.
And just in case anyone needs reminding of what passes for "science" in HTS's world:

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word".

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

An little bunny brings eggs to good boys and girls on Easter morning.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

A jolly elf brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas morning.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living 600+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A fairy brings money to good boys and girls when they loose a tooth.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Pi = 3.

Insects have 4 legs.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131389 May 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your above post shows what a moron you really are.
I'm glad YOU think so! Most idjits do.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131390 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're forgetting that creation science journals ARE peer reviewed, and there are several fine papers that say just that. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.(Denial of Facts - part of the grand atheistic conspiracy.)
PEER reviewed, as in reviewed by other religiturds.

I bet this means you've never heard of Non-Advocate Review as a peer review process. It is one that no religion has ever passed and that includes creatoturdism.
One way or another

United States

#131391 May 26, 2013
Lol, you just get dumber and dumber, thanks.
One way or another

United States

#131392 May 26, 2013
You just get dumber and dumber, I didn't know that was possible. Lmao,---thanks

Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying this Lenski guy conducted reproductive experiments on humans for 50,000 generations, at least 100,000 years? Now, why does that make me think you are a liar?

Hmmm now that I think about it, 50,000 generations would be 1,000,000 years ... that doesn't make you look any better though.
Reply
Report this post

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131393 May 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
You just get dumber and dumber, I didn't know that was possible. Lmao,---thanks
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying this Lenski guy conducted reproductive experiments on humans for 50,000 generations, at least 100,000 years? Now, why does that make me think you are a liar?
Hmmm now that I think about it, 50,000 generations would be 1,000,000 years ... that doesn't make you look any better though.
Reply
Report this post
I'm glad YOU think so, most idjits do!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131394 May 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
You just get dumber and dumber, I didn't know that was possible. Lmao,---thanks
Most everyone in the world knows who the dumb ones are in the SCIENCE vs. bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALES "debate".

If you have any doubts, ask any Indian Hindus or Japanese Shinto or Chinese Buddhists or Israeli Jews or Swedish agnostics or Dutch atheists, etc., that you may know.

“Understand people,”

Level 3

Since: Mar 08

do you.

#131395 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're trying to tell us that the laws of chemistry are variable. As soon as you can demonstrate this, it will be given consideration. Until then, it is dismissed without evidence, as you have presented no evidence.
Actually, my premise was just to mention that those laws behave in a way that is constrained under a specific standard.
But since you have mentioned the argument of static vs. variable, I will attempt to explain how the laws of chemistry are somewhat variable within this static constraint.

This is demonstrated by every tangible thing that exists from solids, liquids, gases and aqueous formed solutions.
Consider these simple examples of the variance of dihydrogen monoxide (H20):
1.Freeze liquified H20, becomes solid H20 (ice).
2.Heat liquified H20, evaporates into gaseous H20 (steam).
3.Alas, the condensation of steamed H20 becomes liquid H20 again.

As you see, H20 takes 3 forms of variance.
Yet, it is static as H20.
What constraint keeps it as H20, you might say?
Their number of electrons to form a bond.
What made the bond have the ability to form? The static constraint known as a law of chemistry.
Yet, within that law, variance occurs.

MORE VARIANCE with hydrogen and oxygen-
Think about pH
What about alkalines? OH
What about acids? H

Now, introduce Carbon into the picture.
You will find:

-Some Carbohydrates-
glucose - C6H12O6
starch - C12H22O11
Deoxyribose - C5H10O4
Ribose - C5H10O5

-Alcohols-
ethanol alcohol - C2H5OH
isopropyl alcohol -(CH3)2CHOH
methane - CH4
propanol-CH3CH2CH2OH

etc.

The above had shown the many dynamic forms that are held by a static constraint, which in turn, enables chemical bonding.
And to think that us, as carbon based beings, are just a few carbons, hydrogens, or oxygens away from drinking gasoline or acid instead of drinking wine. Isn't that a murky thought of variance?

But, what if the constraint itself was variable?
Then that means that you swallow a Dr. Pepper and soon as it reaches halfway to your stomach,
it will turn into syrupy octane CH3(CH2)6CH3
while it travels down into your esophagus. LOL

Therefore, some 'judiciary' stimulant, if you will, had to hold true to prevent these rather unfavorable but
dynamic occurrences within the laws of chemistry from happening.

Evidence is that they exist in those ways.

“Understand people,”

Level 3

Since: Mar 08

do you.

#131396 May 26, 2013
-TYPO-

NOT:
The static constraint known as a law of chemistry.
BUT:
The static constraint that holds a law of chemistry.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 52 min Dogen 81,487
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 5 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 5 hr Science 1
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Dogen 32,891
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 hr Dogen 2,187
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 12 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web