Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137905 Jun 22, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
today MUGWUMP be all over the US tomorrow
UK will have to wait until Monday.
#1k or 1a imperial to receive a copy.
Hey, you know what?

Us Brits get stuff from US all the time , the daily show, Frasier even friends (yeah we get your dross as well)

But to make it easier - just post a link tomorrow citing your work with the royal society - there's a good chap.

Unless you making stuff up of course

Don't worry will remind you

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137906 Jun 22, 2013
I love TalkOrigins.org :

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1...

HST did get one thing correct. The site that ran the tests said, at that time, they could not date any sample younger than 2 million years.

There have been a few hypotheses on how Austin got such bad results. The number one hypothesis is that there was atmospheric contamination of the sample. He also noted that there were phenocrysts in the rock meaning it should not be dated by this method for a young rock ever.

Today they can get the date off of individual crystals. That means they can date the phenocrysts separate from that of the matrix that old the rock together.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#137907 Jun 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Geochron Labs published that K-Ar could not be used for dates of less than 2 million years.

In 1969.

"Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment,'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. "

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_he...

Remember, all of the young earth creotard sites are lying to you. All you need to do is check what they say.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137908 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you know what?
Us Brits get stuff from US all the time , the daily show, Frasier even friends (yeah we get your dross as well)
But to make it easier - just post a link tomorrow citing your work with the royal society - there's a good chap.
Unless you making stuff up of course
Don't worry will remind you
Hee Hee! Supposedly thedarklord is one of yours.

It's only fair we are stuck with Jimbo, now you have your own crazy.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#137909 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, you know what?
Us Brits get stuff from US all the time , the daily show, Frasier even friends (yeah we get your dross as well)
But to make it easier - just post a link tomorrow citing your work with the royal society - there's a good chap.
Unless you making stuff up of course
Don't worry will remind you
remember i am under house arrest they take everything
consider yourself fortunate that you can pick up a copy at the bookshop.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#137910 Jun 22, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
Newton was right about the the being a Graviton
but Newton was wrong for not including planetary motion
into the maelstrom of his equations on gravity.

Actually, he did.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#137911 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I love TalkOrigins.org :
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1...
HST did get one thing correct. The site that ran the tests said, at that time, they could not date any sample younger than 2 million years.
There have been a few hypotheses on how Austin got such bad results. The number one hypothesis is that there was atmospheric contamination of the sample. He also noted that there were phenocrysts in the rock meaning it should not be dated by this method for a young rock ever.
Today they can get the date off of individual crystals. That means they can date the phenocrysts separate from that of the matrix that old the rock together.

The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137912 Jun 22, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
remember i am under house arrest they take everything
consider yourself fortunate that you can pick up a copy at the bookshop.
Now I know you are a wind up
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137913 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hee Hee! Supposedly thedarklord is one of yours.
It's only fair we are stuck with Jimbo, now you have your own crazy.
Hey at least ours don't run for government - I see your dark lord and raise you a Sarah palin :-)

Anyway suspect His Lordiness is a windup

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137914 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Right, the lab warned them not to use a hammer as a screwdriver ahead of time and yet they did.

Also it is important to note that the dacite had phenocrysts in it. Phenocrysts are large crystals that are picked up by the material as it flows. Those will be always older than the surrounding matrix. When a rock is very young those will throw a whole rock date off by huge amounts, you cannot do whole rock dating on a very young rock.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137915 Jun 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
New scientific definition by Jim Ryan
The definition of evolutionary science!
Science in the name of evolution, has become everything that cannot be proven.
Even children can write evolutionary science.
Can science prove the
Big Bang?---------NO
String theory----------NO
Radiocarbon dating-----NO
Isotope dating----------NO
Light theory----------NO
Relativity----------NO
Speed of light----------NO
Gravitational lensing----NO
Tol theory----------NO
Red shift supporting the Big Bang--NO
Evolution supports the grasp of anything unprovable.
Whole classes of students have commenced and completed degrees in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry during the time you have shown your failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of the scientific method, here on this thread.

What is the difference between a fact and a theory in SCIENCE, Jimbo? No cut and paste please, answer in your own words. Or don't. Its your loss.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137916 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey at least ours don't run for government - I see your dark lord and raise you a Sarah palin :-)
Anyway suspect His Lordiness is a windup
How about Lord Monckton?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137917 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How about Lord Monckton?
Ok, I am beginning to dislike you now.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137918 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Which translates in response to HTS' yearnings for reality to be something different than it is "they admitted that all radiometric dating is false".

Just like in his yearning, dreaming mind, a questionable femur in Dubois' excavations can call into to question 40+ Erectus fossil finds since.

And 40+ Erectus fossils can in his imagination "fit into the modern range"....if you count midgets and microcephalics, presumably, who happen to also have enormous brow ridges and molars and no chin and other aspects of skeletal structure five standard deviations from the modern norm, all coincidentally in the direction of an ape, during a period when no "normal" modern skeletons have been found.

Yep. Just like UC. Utterly delusional.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137919 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I am beginning to dislike you now.
We all have our crosses to bear.

And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137920 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have our crosses to bear.
And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.
The problem is that the two politically driven sides are both wrong. We are in a warming period, a natural one at that, however the warming trend has been disrupted and is erratic, which is not typical nor what we have seen in the past. That means we have been impacting it somehow, but the climatologists are still trying to figure out exactly how and if, and what, we can do to allow the trend to return to it's natural state. The problem is that with our current population level, there may simply be no effective method of doing that without risking more damage.

Perhaps it's just time for our species to follow the dinosaurs, who had caused a similar disruption of the climate when they ruled. Life will always be on Earth, until Sol decides to finally die, we cannot really stop that, however, we can eliminate ourselves with such things.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137921 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have our crosses to bear.
And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.
Hmmm, and his views on addressing the AIDS problem?

On AGW, I see an interesting parallel with the evolution debate - the science goes out the window and focus is given to some of the uncertainty (e.g. the scale of the issue), some frauds (E.A uni - though not technically a fraud) and some crazy stuff ( it's all a con to raise taxes/preserve grant money)

In both cases (Evo and AGW) there is a vested interest in denying the science (biblical literalism and a unwillingness to pay taxes as a strategy to mitigate carbon emissions)

Badly typed I admit as done on phone - but u get the gist

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137922 Jun 22, 2013
Yes, we are in a warming trend. The argument is whether it is natural or not and the more that I look at the evidence the more I find myself agreeing with the AGW folk.

Now I hate the way that they have tried to address this problem. But who knows, massive wind farms may be the answer, if we ever get the storage problem licked.

I did not know Monckton had a view on the AIDS problem. I am sure that they are on as firm of a scientific footing as those he has on AGW<rolleyes>

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137923 Jun 22, 2013
I did a quick scan on Monckton and it seems he has changed his viewpoint on AIDS since his early statement advocating quarantine of all infected people. Now theoretically he could have been correct. If we took away everyone' right to privacy. Tested them regularly. And locked up all infected people a good deal of the AIDS epidemic could have been skipped. All it would take is a totalitarian government. So what's a little bit of lost freedom when you are fighting a serious disease?

He admits that we are well past that now. So does he have any crazy cures?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#137924 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As an aside an interesting fact about insects is that if all animals on earth were weighed the total weight of the insects would be greater (by nearly a factor of 2) than ALL of the other animals COMBINED.
Insects are the most successful animals on the planet.
I know and beetles rule the world, lol but seriously the amount of insects could probably never even be known or categorized.
But I give them a !!!!! for making the effort to let us know!

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) 2 min syamsu 205,489
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Aura Mytha 18,707
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr nanoanomaly 936
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Into The Night 43,411
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 15 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Aug 28 Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Aug 28 Dogen 151,492
More from around the web