Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,967

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." Full Story
Mugwump

Manchester, 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

Manchester, 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

Manchester, 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.

“God of War”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#141833 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.
You are the one saying it is a huge windfall .... or were you just referring to a lot of hot air?
HTS

Williston, ND

#141834 Jul 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Of course I don't understand PE...
No one does.
PE is nothing more than an ad hoc conjecture to explain away the inconsistencies in the fossil record with what gradualism would logically predict.
You haven't removed any barriers by simply attaching a label to something.
HTS

Williston, ND

#141835 Jul 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists.
There is nothing in the fossil record that is inconsistent with intelligent design.
If there is, then tell me specifically what it is without interjecting your atheistic religion.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141836 Jul 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one saying it is a huge windfall .... or were you just referring to a lot of hot air?
How about reducing our electric bills as payback. I am just an everyday working man and when my paycheck is a day late, I get excited.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#141837 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>How about reducing our electric bills as payback. I am just an everyday working man and when my paycheck is a day late, I get excited.
So, build a small one. Use the power to reduce your power bill. Use the savings to build a bigger one. Repeat until you are selling power back to the power company. Then Repeat some more until you are the power company.

What are you waiting for?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141838 Jul 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Oh yes I agree, you should marry a woman with the power of siphon. It makes a difference :)
We're not talking about a wet&dry vac here_

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 17 min emrenil 1,397
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 51 min Blitzking 149,809
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr One way or another 16,864
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 4 hr Dogen 23
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 4 hr Dogen 714
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Dogen 141,003
Dr. James P. Allison, presidential candidate Dr... 6 hr paul porter 3
More from around the web