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.

FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141813 Jul 9, 2013
The idea of capturing the water weight is not infringing on anyones patent, because any related patents have long since expired and the concept we discussed here can not be patented now, because we have already disclosed it. This is a FREE gift to the world from FREE SERVANT and you guys, if you want to give it go.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#141814 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>NOT very good at math are we? Lests just call it a 100% winfall for our energy needs.

LOL. You apparently did not proofread or think through your own post.

50% of 50% is 25%. So if you add 50% to what is originally 50% then you have 75%.

My autistic son can figure this out.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#141815 Jul 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the flawed nature of the fossil record is well understood.
It is known that we may not be able to trace all of the steps of certain species ever. What is important is that every fossil fits the evolutionary paradigm, even though we have given clear examples of how it could be falsified. Creationists cannot even get started. Their claims are falsified almost as soon as they hit your creatard sites.
Wrong, SZ
You've looked at the fossil record...
Then you constructed the ToE around what exists, fabricating whatever ad hoc hypothesis is necessary to validate your religion. Example...PE...what a load of BS. Please explain to me HOW PE actually works.How do mutations just poof into existence out of nowhere when a niche is ready to be exploited?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Falmouth, UK

#141816 Jul 9, 2013
science is definitively on the up.
game of taro anyone?
no its not nice is it,
bet you find it a different world on the outside.
but locked inside you prison cell library's modem
and bang you are whole different guy.
i just can't believe the bull [email protected]
for the bull [email protected] they really are?
my my bull [email protected]!
my my bull [email protected]
i offer up myself with love and science,
and you just mock and mock,
with a barrel load of lies about
your hard luck story that has brought you here.
your hard luck story that has brought you here
and of course
your hard luck story that has brought you here
between a rock and a hard place.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Falmouth, UK

#141817 Jul 9, 2013
you lie on my blog and i just........................
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141818 Jul 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You apparently did not proofread or think through your own post.
50% of 50% is 25%. So if you add 50% to what is originally 50% then you have 75%.
My autistic son can figure this out.
OK then, what I meant was; Rivers suppy at least 50% of our electricity in some areas, if we could get another amount of power from them that equals that amount, THEN we could get 100% of our power from rivers.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#141819 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>

<snipped because it is the same old religious dogma trotted out as science as HTS has been drinking the creo-koolaid>

Example...PE...what a load of BS. Please explain to me HOW PE actually works.How do mutations just poof into existence out of nowhere when a niche is ready to be exploited?
But here he has a fantastic point, how DO the mutations just appear to fill environmental niches...

Oh sorry I forgot

- the MUTATIONS form the same way they always form

- PE doesn't suggest otherwise

- HTS doesn't understand the subject he is debunking

Ok, maybe not such a fantastic point after all ......

UNLESS of course (and this is the bit that will send HTS into mega - dodge mode)

You want to give a reference to where PE suggests what you say it does.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#141820 Jul 9, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
you lie on my blog and i just..........
Note down the lie and use it as guidance for your posts here ?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#141821 Jul 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
- HTS doesn't understand the subject he is debunking
Dr Phony doesn't know what he's talking about? Imagine my shock.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#141822 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>OK then, what I meant was; Rivers suppy at least 50% of our electricity in some areas, if we could get another amount of power from them that equals that amount, THEN we could get 100% of our power from rivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_US_ele...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#141823 Jul 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
"Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
You got it wrong by an order of magnitude even after I just provided the correct figures! Got to watch you real close!
OK, I stand corrected on this point, but that is not the issue.

Why "gotta watch me real close"? If you got my point, you will see that you are merely making the most of a trivial error.

Its not the total percentage that matters in this case, its the magnitude of the INCREASE. As I said. So now the INCREASE of 30% in levels should, all things being equal, INCREASE the greenhouse effect of CO2 by 30% as well.

My analogy about the arsenic in the glass stands, to clarify this point. 30% MORE arsenic is 30% MORE, and may make the difference between a dose that sickens you and one that kills you.

See the point? Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment, but my point stands.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#141824 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I really don't have the time and money to prove this. the concept is in the public domain here, so you can make one, if you want.
In other words, you know there is no profit in this stupid idea and so you won't put your money where your mouth is. Got it!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#141825 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure special pleading BS...
Seems you do not understand that particular term. Here is special pleading: "despite all measures including analysis of distant stars showing decay rates are constant, we insist that decay rates were far higher in the past, which is why radiometric dating is wrong. Evidence? We don't have any!"
You haven't pointed out a single unequivocal transitional species.
To do so would be speculation. We have many intermediate options in the case of ape/hominid evolution. Our ancestors could be a number of combinations of these, or even include species not yet discovered. That is just normal science bud.
A few fragments of extinct ape skulls doesn't provide a shred of evidence that man is descended from apes, regardless of how much you wish that were so.
I wouldn't call it on the strength of a few ape skull fragments. But of course we have dramatically more than that, in fact a continuum of candidate species from apelike to humanlike and everything in between. 40+ H erectus alone! Multiple habilis, georgicus, heidelburgensis, and australopithecus specimens. And not skull fragments, but almost complete skeletons in many cases.

So perhaps its time you stopped lying about the quantity and quality of the fossil evidence.
Fossil evidence that contradicts evolution...? I just gave you an example...pterosaur evolution. You dodged and rationalized.
Bollocks. A gap in the fossil record is not evidence against evolution. Its simply a gap in the fossil record. Now, if you showed me a pterosaur preceding the entire reptile class, that might be evidence against evolution. But, of course, you cannot do that.
You've constructed the ToE around the fossil record, rationalizing every observation to fit the paradigm of evolution. The entirely of the fossil record contradicts evolution. Your incessant parroting of the same BS doesn't prove anything.
Then it should be easy for you to show me fossils of creatures that are in earlier strata than their possible antecedents. Hell, they should be everywhere! But, strangely enough, they are nowhere...just as evolution predicted and explains, and your creationism hasn't got a CLUE how to accommodate.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#141826 Jul 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I stand corrected on this point, but that is not the issue.
Why "gotta watch me real close"? If you got my point, you will see that you are merely making the most of a trivial error.
The difference between a CO2 reading of 400 parts per million vs a reading of 4,000 parts per million is hardly trivial. The correct reading of 400 parts per million is a tiny percentage of the composition of the atmospheric gases and is completely overshadowed by the effects of clouds and water vapor.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141827 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, SZ
You've looked at the fossil record...
Then you constructed the ToE around what exists, fabricating whatever ad hoc hypothesis is necessary to validate your religion. Example...PE...what a load of BS. Please explain to me HOW PE actually works.How do mutations just poof into existence out of nowhere when a niche is ready to be exploited?
How's That for Stupid, that is how science is done. You observe. You try to find an explanation. You create a model that explains it. Then you test your model.

That is what has been done with the theory of evolution. If they were wrong the odds are extremely high that they would have found evidence that indicates that.

Creationists cannot deal with the fossil record. They have no explanation for it.

And no, I am not going to try to explain punctuated equilibrium to an idiot.

Remember, you cannot demand anything. You need to finish the evidence class before you have that right.

Right now I am happy to simply show how you are wrong.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#141828 Jul 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between a CO2 reading of 400 parts per million vs a reading of 4,000 parts per million is hardly trivial. The correct reading of 400 parts per million is a tiny percentage of the composition of the atmospheric gases and is completely overshadowed by the effects of clouds and water vapor.
Again, you are missing the point.

It's not the concentration of a particular substance but its reactivity (well technically a combination of both I guess), and the PROPORTIONAL increase of the substance.

Due to feedback cycles e.g. A seemingly small rise in temperatures, increasing the release of methane (another potent greenhouse gas) from methane hydrate - hence the positive feedback.

But you say all this is ''completely overshadowed'' by clouds AND water vapor (huh?)- care to back this up -

or did you get it from the same source as your 'volcanoes produce a million more times CO2 than mankind' claim ?

I say claim - I mean lie - just interested if it was your lie - or one you have gullibly swallowed from a crank source.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141829 Jul 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you know there is no profit in this stupid idea and so you won't put your money where your mouth is. Got it!!
SO there we have it, no matter how you look at it, somebody has to make a lot of money or renewable energy will never become a player. I rest my case.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141830 Jul 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
So, I gather that dams generate about 16% of the worlds electricity. If each dam could double their output, that wouldn't be too shabby.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#141831 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Siphons could be a great WINDFALL to supply our energy needs from rivers in a eco- friendly manner.
Oh yes I agree, you should marry a woman with the power of siphon. It makes a difference :)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#141832 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>SO there we have it, no matter how you look at it, somebody has to make a lot of money or renewable energy will never become a player. I rest my case.
There is ENORMOUS potential in renewable energy. Easily in the BILLIONS of dollars for a viable energy alternative. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-ener...

If you were confident in your cartoon "siphon energy device", you would gladly put a 2nd mortgage on your house in invest in it.

Fact is, you're too ignorant to devise a working model of your "idea", but smart enough to not invest anything other than some personal integrity and self esteem on an internet debate site.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 min Science 2,206
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Science 81,909
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Al Caplan 164,317
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Sat Science 33,086
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web