Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180363 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.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#136957 Jun 19, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
One new theory claims everything in our material world and universe is a product of cycling systems. Gravity is created by something and according to this theory it is a system that produces it.
evolution is 50% energy 25% gravity and 25% magnetism. Agree or disagree.
(forget the rest of the judge icons and lets have a straight forward vote)
so judge this post agree or disagree and let lets poll your votes.
Mugwump

UK

#136958 Jun 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
Light theory
Science by Jim Ryan
Science makes all the claims below. All I do is explain the lies created by what science claims
I will either wake the people up, or I will have to watch the leaders destroy our world.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since the entire worlds schools teach nothing but the stupidity of copy and paste, the children cannot keep pace with the stupidity of governments.
Free the minds of the children, by teaching them to not only copy and paste, but also to think for themselves and that action will see the children solving the ignorance created by the stupid gov's and school systems.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, if allowed.
Go to the following site and look at the real pictures. Notice also that all the galaxies are expanded.
The expansion---exaggeration----is what is creating the distortions in the pictures that science calls, gravitational lensing.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images...
Why and how are most of these pictures deceptive, besides the expansions made, in order to better pick out individual galaxies. Hint, science adds color to most of the pics.
The next part of the lie concerns light travel. If people go to the retro reflector test from the earth to the moon and back, science claims that the most powerful laser beams are used to bounce off the retro reflectors. Science then claims that the laser beams don't make the trip back. Science claims that it can only collect one photon every few seconds. That test is only 478,000 miles and the light completely breaks apart.
What that means is that light disperses farther and farther apart, the further away it gets from its source.
Science also claims that our
we (and the rest of the Solar System) are traveling at a velocity of about 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec).-------
Meaning, that in the 2.6 seconds that beam of light went from the earth to the moon and back, our solar system, with the earth tagging along, has travelled over 300 miles from where science claims the light should return too. That also means science is lying, because science doesn't have any light collectors back 300 miles.
Oh yea, as science points out that light scatters the further it gets from its source, according to the reflector test, that means, light from distant galaxies don't make it here as science claims, meaning science is lying about seeing back in time.
We see out to those galaxies, their light does not make it here.
As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned! Morons only consider one side, even without proof.
Of course I gave you a really simple experiment to test your hypothesis, that you can do in your garden.

But you kept ignoring it - I presume YOUR version of science doesn't actually involve verifying your nonsense.

Seems a pretty useless method if I am honest

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#136959 Jun 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
...no, it does not "explain" anything not already known.
pug. Free Servant is trying to conduct an experiment
remember the subject of this forum science
you pugs. are all the same
not content with being an ape
are you boy?
want to be a fully fledged Human being
trust you don't want
i can smell your pug, ass from here
better have a pug ass than a black ass
aye chumbo !!!

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#136960 Jun 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I brought up the dog skull challenge. Deal with it.
looked into you your cool
mr HOUSE Trained Shepherd HTS

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136961 Jun 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It was dealt with. There are no major differences in dog skulls.
You made that claim without any support from a reasonable source.
Plus, dog skull shape is due to selective breeding, not due to evolution. It is a related but different process.
Precisely. While skull/brain size is *one* indication of intelligence, it is not the only one and may not always be the most important one.

Dogs were breed from wolves. A species with an already established brain. Making the brain case smaller (or even in some cases, larger) has obviously little effect on the intelligence of dogs. It it did, large dogs would be smarter than small dogs which we know is not the case. If it were, Irish Wolfhounds would be much smarter than Border Collies but they are not.

In any event, the comparison to hominid evolution is a poor one as hominids evolved from smaller brains to larger ones. This is very different from adjusting size of an already existing wolf brain. So the comparison to dogs falls apart.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#136962 Jun 19, 2013
I have asked you evoturds several times about how one nothing became life in a lifeless primeval soup and then became millions and millions of species. You all say that is not what evolution is about. Well..... WRONG!!!

You claim to be evo experts but don't even know what it is about. LMAO

Even science says "Evolution is fascinating because it attempts to answer one of the most basic human questions: Where did life, and human beings, come from?

­Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evoluti...
Mugwump

UK

#136963 Jun 19, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
evolution is 50% energy 25% gravity and 25% magnetism. Agree or disagree.
(forget the rest of the judge icons and lets have a straight forward vote)
so judge this post agree or disagree and let lets poll your votes.
UC
HTS
Jimbo
The dark loon

Devolution in action ?

(Oh and disagree)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#136964 Jun 19, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>pug. Free Servant is trying to conduct an experiment
remember the subject of this forum science
you pugs. are all the same
not content with being an ape
are you boy?
want to be a fully fledged Human being
trust you don't want
i can smell your pug, ass from here
better have a pug ass than a black ass
aye chumbo !!!
I'm sorry, you evidentially put a lot of thought into your post above.

Am I supposed to be intimidated?

By YOU?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#136965 Jun 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It was dealt with. There are no major differences in dog skulls.
You made that claim without any support from a reasonable source.
Plus, dog skull shape is due to selective breeding, not due to evolution. It is a related but different process.
So now you've been caught with your pants down in yet two more bald-faced lies.

1. "There are no major differences in dog skulls." You see major differences between skulls of australopithicus and a chimpanzee, but see no major differences between the skull of a bulldog and the skull of a greyhound.
Professor Joseph Weiner, a paleoanthropologist who believes Australopithecus to be ancestral to man, admitted,

"The first impression given by all the skulls from the different populations of Australopithecus is of a distinctive ape-like creature... The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit..."

*Weiner, Joseph S., The Natural History of Man,(New York: University Books, 1971), 255pp (quote from p. 45-46--emphasis added)

2. Now you claim that selective breeding is a "different process" than evolution. That's not what DarwinBots have been parroting for over 150 years. Read what Dick Dawkins said in one of his books (Greatest Show on Earth, 2006)...

"If human breeders can transform a wolf into a Pekingese, or a wild cabbage into a cauliflower, in just a few centuries or millennia, why shouldn't the non-random survival of wild animals and plants do the same thing over millions of years."
HTS

Sidney, MT

#136966 Jun 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, not true. For one example, the fossil record shows that in many migratory species the length of migration used to be shorter than in contemporary species.
Changing what's already there doesn't prove anything.
My challenge stands.
Produce scientific evidence that a whale's migratory instinct evolved from an animal with no migratory instinct.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#136967 Jun 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It was dealt with. There are no major differences in dog skulls.
You made that claim without any support from a reasonable source.
.
Unlike you, I think for myself, rather than simply copying/pasting from websites. My challenge can stand on its own.
Phenotypic variability does not prove that speciation has occurred, as exemplified in the selective breeding of dogs. All of your responses thus far have been blatant denials of reality.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#136968 Jun 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And what about black holes would you like to debate?
Do you have anything besides slobbering and drooling?
don't you mean black Suns. Chum

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136969 Jun 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
I have asked you evoturds several times about how one nothing became life in a lifeless primeval soup and then became millions and millions of species. You all say that is not what evolution is about. Well..... WRONG!!!
You claim to be evo experts but don't even know what it is about. LMAO
Laugh all you want. It is YOU that obviously don't eve know what it's about. ToE explain the diversity of life not its origins. Just as chemistry is concerned with atoms, interactions with other atoms and chemical bonds. It does not concern itself with the origins of matter. That is left to physics.
replaytime wrote:
Even science says "Evolution is fascinating because it attempts to answer one of the most basic human questions: Where did life, and human beings, come from?
­Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule. This spark of life was the seed of every living thing we see today.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evoluti...
How Stuff Works??? That what you call a scientific reference? Now I'm laughing.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#136970 Jun 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. That's point I am making but not the only point. There are certainly fossils indistinguishable from modern humans "back to 4.5 mya". That must mean humans have been around since before Australopithecus. H. Erectus shows hardly any change throughout its supposed history of "2 million years". So what did it evolve from or what is it evolving to? In fact all of the various so-called ape to man transitional forms such as H. sapiens, Neanderthal, and H. erectus, all occasionally lived at approximately overlapping time frames according to evolutionary age calculations! More ancient species have been found in the later periods. H. habilis could not have evolved into H. erectus if they existed at the same time together. So even when the fossils of these various forms are arranged by order in favor of the evolutionist, they still offer no evidence of ape to man evolution!
You are assuming a species cannot branch away and the parent species still exist. This is an error , there are several forms of isolation that can cause this very thing to happen, while both thrive alongside each other.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#136971 Jun 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh all you want. It is YOU that obviously don't eve know what it's about. ToE explain the diversity of life not its origins. Just as chemistry is concerned with atoms, interactions with other atoms and chemical bonds. It does not concern itself with the origins of matter. That is left to physics.
<quoted text>
How Stuff Works??? That what you call a scientific reference? Now I'm laughing.
Oh that is very hypocritical. Dogen can use it for a reference link but I can't? LMMFAO

Dogen's post link below where he uses How Stuff Works.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
HTS

Sidney, MT

#136972 Jun 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Laugh all you want. It is YOU that obviously don't eve know what it's about. ToE explain the diversity of life not its origins. Just as chemistry is concerned with atoms, interactions with other atoms and chemical bonds. It does not concern itself with the origins of matter. That is left to physics.
<quoted text>
How Stuff Works??? That what you call a scientific reference? Now I'm laughing.
Evo-dogma claims that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything.
The false bifurcation between abiogenesis and evolution is a dodge.
If you claim that naturalism can explain everything, then it is your responsibility to refute every line of evidence to the contrary, regardless of whatever dogma is published in textbooks.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#136973 Jun 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, I think for myself, rather than simply copying/pasting from websites. My challenge can stand on its own.
.
You say you can think for yourself , and your challenge can stand on its own - but you're not willing to even address my challenge about how you insist ToE is an atheist conspiracy, but the rest of science is not.

Have given up expecting a response to be honest but is worth the odd repost to remind others how you dodge anything that shows you to be an epic fail logicwise
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, using your logic.

The laws of physics (including gravity) show 'complexity'

Complexity has ONLY been created through intelligence

The theory of gravity makes no reference to intelligence , therefore excludes God.

Therefore the the of gravity is athesitic in nature.

There is NO difference between this logic and the one you use for ToE (I.e. they are both BS)

So either :-
Point out where the above logic is wrong
Admit you reject science.

(Know you won't - put this to you about 6 times now - and you don't address it)

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#136974 Jun 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you've failed to address the dog skull challenge.
If a Chihuahua and bulldog and greyhound are all one species (and they are), then the very notion of being able to look at skull fragments and draw conclusions based on measurements with calipers is destroyed. You have failed to provide any published data that documents what the ranges are of variability of skull morphology. You expect us to just take the word of "experts" who claim that our ancestors were apes, when you have no science whatsoever to back up your claims.
I'll tell you what science I have... Comparative anatomy of skulls of varying breeds produced through simple inbreeding indicates that phenotype is an extremely poor indicator of genotype.
HTS
you are right
all dogs are adaptations of the same dog through time
captured in frozen time for us all to enjoy.
dogs either are regressing downwards or progressing upwards
from the hunting hound to the chihuahua
or the chihuahua to the hunting hound respectively.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#136975 Jun 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo-dogma claims that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything.
The false bifurcation between abiogenesis and evolution is a dodge.
If you claim that naturalism can explain everything, then it is your responsibility to refute every line of evidence to the contrary, regardless of whatever dogma is published in textbooks.
HTS you win the migratory instinct evolution debate with Dogen. Even evoturd MikeF says "How Stuff Works" is BS for reference. SO according to MikeF, the link Dogen gave you from there is just BS. LOL

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#136976 Jun 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh that is very hypocritical. Dogen can use it for a reference link but I can't? LMMFAO
Dogen's post link below where he uses How Stuff Works.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
You have to take that up with him.

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) 3 min Into The Night 87,431
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 7 min Eagle 12 - 5,818
What's your religion? 2 hr Simon 771
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Simon 166,351
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 20 hr Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web