Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#141850 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

The only barrier to something that literally happens every day is in your brain.

If you don't understand PE then read what Darwin had to say about it.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#141851 Jul 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and if dogs could learn to crap gold we would all be rich.
Dude, that is some heavy shit.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#141852 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Wild assertion
Wild assertion about something that can't be science because it has been refuted.
Wild assertion, poisoning the well and nutty delusion.

All you have to do to learn about evolution is read a book about it which is something you are clearly unwilling to do.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#141853 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I think Servant is sincere about his ventures into energy speculation, I just don't think he has a complete grasp of certain concepts.

I don't know if he is sincere about the idea, but certainly he does not grasp the concepts.

One Jim per forum is enough.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#141854 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
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.
I have to ask. When you keep talking about water weight and capturing the energy from a huge weight of water are you suggesting that this water all be released at once?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#141855 Jul 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if he is sincere about the idea, but certainly he does not grasp the concepts.
One Jim per forum is enough.
Sorry, I am stirring the hornets nest, but I am curious about that "weight of the water" issue he keeps bouncing on. As near as I can figure, the water weight means nothing except in regard to pressure. The pressure is what would make a difference in his magical, electrical generating water wonker. In reading on this, it seems that pressure and velocity are the key physical parameters important to power production with water.

Jim seems more...well everything you said.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141856 Jul 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How so?

The fossil record is exactly what would be predicted by the theory of evolution. The fossil record is a disaster for creationism. They can't develop a single explanation of it that is not quickly debunked.

The fact that you don't understand evolution cannot be used to debunk evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141857 Jul 9, 2013
HST, you won't even say what you mean by "intelligent design".

There are very many different versions of "intelligent design". They go all the way from evolution from abiogenesis with God's help to all out creationism.

The only version that is not debunked by the fossil record is the evolution from abiogenesis with God's help.

You have to look at life and realize that the design is not all that intelligent.

Level 1

Since: Jul 13

Houston, MO

#141858 Jul 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?
The fossil record is exactly what would be predicted by the theory of evolution. The fossil record is a disaster for creationism. They can't develop a single explanation of it that is not quickly debunked.
The fact that you don't understand evolution cannot be used to debunk evolution.
Your fossil record has more holes in it than a boat with a screen bottom. There should be millions of transitional fossils and they have found maybe one out of every 20,000. Evolution is throughout a population but yet they have only found 1 out of every 20,000 of any population. Should they not have found a lot more than 1 Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops). All they have found is a species born with a deformity and call it transitional species. For if evolution is change in a population then they should have a whole population of Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), or Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), or Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops) not just one with thousands and thousands of unfilled holes in between what they have found. When you get a whole population of fossils that have evolved into another population and have those fossils as well. Then you might have something.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141859 Jul 9, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fossil record has more holes in it than a boat with a screen bottom. There should be millions of transitional fossils and they have found maybe one out of every 20,000. Evolution is throughout a population but yet they have only found 1 out of every 20,000 of any population. Should they not have found a lot more than 1 Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops). All they have found is a species born with a deformity and call it transitional species. For if evolution is change in a population then they should have a whole population of Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), or Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), or Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops) not just one with thousands and thousands of unfilled holes in between what they have found. When you get a whole population of fossils that have evolved into another population and have those fossils as well. Then you might have something.
They have plenty of transitional fossils. The problem is that most creationists cannot recognize them.

And no, we should not have "millions". of transitional fossils. Why do you say that? You do realize that the odds of a species leaving fossil evidence behind is directly tied into the population of that species, don't you?

And you should pay attention. They have found quite a few "Lucy's" (Australopithics afarensis) she was just the first one found that was relatively complete. They have found more since. "Flat faced man" may be yet another A. ararensis. There is some debate about it. Yet if there population was never very great there is no reason that we should find more fossils. There are many species that we will never find fossils of.

The fact is that the so called "holes" in the descent of man are continually being filled. Learn more about why land based fossils are extremely rare and you will quit making such foolish claims.

The fact is that all fossils fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Creationists can't even begin to make one.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#141860 Jul 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What point? That you are a complete anti-science, ideological idiot?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#141861 Jul 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there are traces / evidence.
You just lie and say there isn't
Pretty straightforward really
No clearly you are the one that's lying. I don't have to believe your fairy tales. If there was any decent evidence you would have shown it to us by now. You need to be honest for once and admit the whole thing is a crock. Microbes to man indeed! You don't really believe that for one minute. You just chose to live a lie for ideological reasons. Please don't respond.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141862 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hydroelectric power plants exist on that model. They use turbines to drive the generators.
Yes, but we were talking about laying hugh siphon conduits on the river bed and bringing the outlet away from the river downstream in places where there are no dams. They might need to be ran a few miles to get enough drop in elevation.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141863 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have to ask. When you keep talking about water weight and capturing the energy from a huge weight of water are you suggesting that this water all be released at once?
Yes, I was suggesting that the receiving container could have a bottom that lifts up and flushes the contents quickly when it gets full and then a float weight could shut the bottom back quickly after it flushes.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#141864 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I am stirring the hornets nest, but I am curious about that "weight of the water" issue he keeps bouncing on. As near as I can figure, the water weight means nothing except in regard to pressure. The pressure is what would make a difference in his magical, electrical generating water wonker. In reading on this, it seems that pressure and velocity are the key physical parameters important to power production with water.
Jim seems more...well everything you said.
This is a different approach. The weight is converted directly into mechanical energy as the tank fills up and gets heavier. Water pressure is not involved to make energy, it is the volume of water that matters.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#141865 Jul 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
They have plenty of transitional fossils. The problem is that most creationists cannot recognize them.
And no, we should not have "millions". of transitional fossils. Why do you say that? You do realize that the odds of a species leaving fossil evidence behind is directly tied into the population of that species, don't you?
And you should pay attention. They have found quite a few "Lucy's" (Australopithics afarensis) she was just the first one found that was relatively complete. They have found more since. "Flat faced man" may be yet another A. ararensis. There is some debate about it. Yet if there population was never very great there is no reason that we should find more fossils. There are many species that we will never find fossils of.
The fact is that the so called "holes" in the descent of man are continually being filled. Learn more about why land based fossils are extremely rare and you will quit making such foolish claims.
The fact is that all fossils fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Creationists can't even begin to make one.
It is just replay time again. See the Houston Mo ISP. He has posted from this and Licking Mo. They are neighboring communities.

It is always possible I am wrong, because that is in the nuttier part of the state, but I am pretty sure it is him.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#141866 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is just replay time again. See the Houston Mo ISP. He has posted from this and Licking Mo. They are neighboring communities.
It is always possible I am wrong, because that is in the nuttier part of the state, but I am pretty sure it is him.
It doesn't really matter. Sock or not he is obviously wrong.

Why do we have only the worst of the idiots lately? Earlier this year we had a few that at least tried.

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#141867 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I was suggesting that the receiving container could have a bottom that lifts up and flushes the contents quickly when it gets full and then a float weight could shut the bottom back quickly after it flushes.
I am not saying that such a contrivance couldn't be made, but it wouldn't produce power in any meaningful quantity. For one thing, in order to use weight of water as your primary parameter for power generation, you have the lag time to refill your reservoir after each flush (power stroke). The inefficiency of that alone kills the idea right off the bat. Try making a scale model and see if that works. Even if it turns out as all of us have suggested, you can still learn something from it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141868 Jul 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, like, Koalas?
No. We're talking about animals that are known to swim for huge swaths of their lives. I don't recall koalas being known for their prowess in the water, nor their ability to hunt and eat fish. But, maybe you have some kind of access to special koalas that the rest of us don't know about.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#141869 Jul 9, 2013
SonRisen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your fossil record has more holes in it than a boat with a screen bottom. There should be millions of transitional fossils and they have found maybe one out of every 20,000. Evolution is throughout a population but yet they have only found 1 out of every 20,000 of any population. Should they not have found a lot more than 1 Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), more than 1 Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops). All they have found is a species born with a deformity and call it transitional species. For if evolution is change in a population then they should have a whole population of Selam(Australopithecus afarensis), or Lucy(Australopithecus afarensis), or Flat Faced Man(Kenyanthropus platyops) not just one with thousands and thousands of unfilled holes in between what they have found. When you get a whole population of fossils that have evolved into another population and have those fossils as well. Then you might have something.
It's sad that you're stupid.

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) 3 min DanFromSmithville 168,718
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 29 min dirtclod 6,199
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Chimney1 19,760
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Paul Porter1 141,815
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 9 hr Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 9 hr Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID 18 hr qiu 1
More from around the web