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.

defender

Chicago, IL

#144372 Jul 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing is ever "proven" in science.
You continue to show that you are a fool. Proofs are for math and alcohol.
We have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, just like in a trial, that evolution is correct.
What evidence do you have for your beliefs?
I have faith for mine and openly admit I cannot prove them... It's your faith that claims scientific fact for it's backbone... So tell me: Did the great god Natural Selection create the flower for the bee or the bee for the flower?....

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#144373 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I have faith for mine and openly admit I cannot prove them... It's your faith that claims scientific fact for it's backbone... So tell me: Did the great god Natural Selection create the flower for the bee or the bee for the flower?....
The flower existed first, the bee evolved to take advantage of it. The flower futher evolved to attract the bee .... it was a synergistic development.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144374 Jul 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You...you mean Defender is using Dawkins own words, taken out of context to [gasp] MISREPRESENT the intent of the full quote?
I'm SHOCKED.
SHOCKED, I say!
I could barely believe it myself.

I certainly don't believe that defender has read Dawkins' biology books, thats for sure.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144375 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Distorting the truth is found in your speculation... Mutation plus selection (evolutionism god) plus genetic drift and if you want to throw in Harry Potter and some pixy dust have never been proven... Said again... Never been proven...To bring about or morf or even conjure up species change... Your statement is not Scientific Fact!!!
It's what kids?... Speculation...
This is what we call lying for evolutionism!!!...
The quantity of mutation and the timescales required for the kind of speciation that would separate say, lions and tigers or humans and apes takes hundreds of thousands of years up to millions.

We know that, and we know its not directly observable given the span of reliable records. Therefore its laughable to claim it should be easily observable and that this is your personal test for evolution's veracity.

Like any scientific theory, evolution relies on accurately explaining, and predicting, what we CAN observe from our current vantage point.

Predictions of evolution included, for example, the existence of ape/hominid intermediates, since found in abundance and in the right general order to support ape to hominid evolution.

And they included many other predictions since confirmed in the fossil record, the genome, in embryology, biogeography, and atavisms, redundancy, in lab experiments of adaptive change, etc etc.

Since scientists generally test for predictions that ARE possible to observe, and ignore your views about what you think should be observed coming as it were from your personal fairyland of the ridiculous, you now know why 99.85% of biologists completely ignore you and your ilk.
One way or another

United States

#144376 Jul 27, 2013
I hope one day, that someone with a brain will happen by. I leave my work in the hopes of finding someone that can argue on my level.

Light has 2 components

Science by Jim Ryan

I simply use what science claims, to disprove what science claims. Light fades away in the cold of space, but science did not claim that, I have and I have shown partial proof. The rest of that proof stares all of science in the face. I have asked if even one of the evos if they can point out why, but all the Evo children offer is deceit and childish innuendo and name calling. I do wish one of them had a brain.

No where does science speak of light as being two components. Light is comprised of both heat and light. The cold of space robs light of its heat, causing it to fade out over distance.
One way or another

United States

#144377 Jul 27, 2013
Science creates gravitational lensing, not the stars!!!

Show us the logic of gravitational lensing, when science distorts the Hubble lense to enlarge subjects at great distances, which makes the subjects brighter, larger and distorted, while adding coronas, creating the so called, gravitational lensing effect, because no gravitational lensing shows up, unless the subjects are greatly enlarged and distorted,by the Hubble telescope or, if one star aligns behind another.

The scientists are not allowed to control. The evolutionist leadership controls. When are the people, the individual scientists going to wake up and take back what is theirs?

The above is just logic and no one can offer anything to refute it.

Do all you individual scientists enjoy being treated like morons, by your fully corrupt leadership?
Reply

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144378 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I have faith for mine and openly admit I cannot prove them... It's your faith that claims scientific fact for it's backbone... So tell me: Did the great god Natural Selection create the flower for the bee or the bee for the flower?....
Look. The primitive jew god worshipper still thinks natural selection is a god too. For chrissake don't show him a radio, or he will think Satan is hiding in the magic box.
One way or another

United States

#144379 Jul 27, 2013
I have a lot more science. These are just 3 pieces.

Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Science by Jim Ryan

So called scientists prove to be very ignorant, even celebrated idiots. Over 20 years on the same test and lenski couldn't even figure out he should have reversed his experiment. Then he lost control of his experiment, according to his own claims and the morons in science celebrated his ignorance and loss.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by the obvious evidence

Lenski should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. He should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned! Morons only consider one side, even without proof.
One way or another

United States

#144380 Jul 27, 2013
Arguing with the evolutionists robs here is nothing more than a hate feat and a lesson in futility.
One way or another

United States

#144381 Jul 27, 2013
Robs above should be morons and feat should be fest.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#144382 Jul 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I have a lot more science. These are just 3 pieces.
Lenski's antibiotic claim.
Science by Jim Ryan
So called scientists prove to be very ignorant, even celebrated idiots. Over 20 years on the same test and lenski couldn't even figure out he should have reversed his experiment. Then he lost control of his experiment, according to his own claims and the morons in science celebrated his ignorance and loss.
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by the obvious evidence
Lenski should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistant bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. He should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.
As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned! Morons only consider one side, even without proof.
Corrupted science (according to you) has produced many benefits to mankind including the computer you are typing on. What benefit has your cleansed science (according to you) brought to anyone?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144383 Jul 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I need to pick some nits here. Viable means "capable of working successfully". It does not mean that it will work successfully. A hypothesis can be considered to be viable if it is reasaonable and has not shown to be wrong yet. So there can be more than one viable hypothesis of abiogenesis even if only one can possibly be correct. All of the current hypotheses could be wrong. That does not mean that right now they are not viable.
For HST to claim they are not viable puts the burden of proof upon him. He has to show that they are wrong if he wants to make that claim.
If the creatards want to get into a more substantive debate I will be happy to do so. But if they make sweeping idiotic statements I will point out how they are wrong.
To wit: They have not shown abiogenesis to be wrong. If they make a claim where they make some sort of absolute claim I will hang them with it.
OK I accept your point regarding, say, the development of the first protocell using RNA.

But I stand by the mystery of the first DNA. Not the way HTS does - I do not regard our current ignorance as evidence that goddidit. But still, I am not aware that we have closed in on any viable hypothesis for the spontaneous development of the first DNA.

BTW, something like "it came from RNA" is not a viable hypothesis, because its nowhere near specific enough to qualify as anything more than a conjecture. I am aware that RNA can perform both the information function of DNA and the some of the structural / catalytic functions of protein, and so could have been the first step. But going from there to a DNA based bacterium is still a leap at this point. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144384 Jul 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science creates gravitational lensing, not the stars!!!
Show us the logic of gravitational lensing, when science distorts the Hubble lense to enlarge subjects at great distances, which makes the subjects brighter, larger and distorted, while adding coronas, creating the so called, gravitational lensing effect, because no gravitational lensing shows up, unless the subjects are greatly enlarged and distorted,by the Hubble telescope or, if one star aligns behind another.
The scientists are not allowed to control. The evolutionist leadership controls. When are the people, the individual scientists going to wake up and take back what is theirs?
The above is just logic and no one can offer anything to refute it.
Do all you individual scientists enjoy being treated like morons, by your fully corrupt leadership?
Reply
Yes Jim. A secret cabal of Evolutionati control what the poor astronomers managing the Hubble Telescope are allowed to do.
defender

Chicago, IL

#144385 Jul 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>I could barely believe it myself.

I certainly don't believe that defender has read Dawkins' biology books, thats for sure.
The man said and has said more than once that life only appears to be designed... Ok got that so far?... I said it appears to be because it is...
Nothing is taken out of context!! No big great conspiracy... Sorry Charlie Brown... Everyone knows where Dawkins stands if they have read any of his books... Which btw I'm shocked that only one of you has.... I stand by what I said...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144386 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I have faith for mine and openly admit I cannot prove them... It's your faith that claims scientific fact for it's backbone... So tell me: Did the great god Natural Selection create the flower for the bee or the bee for the flower?....
Yes, we base our views upon scientifically verifiable facts.

If you think that if you release a hammer that it will fall you believe that gravity is a fact. In science gravity is a very well supported theory. When we say that animals evolve it is the same sort of belief as a hammer will fall. Both statements are supported by scientific theories that are very well tested and accepted.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144387 Jul 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK I accept your point regarding, say, the development of the first protocell using RNA.
But I stand by the mystery of the first DNA. Not the way HTS does - I do not regard our current ignorance as evidence that goddidit. But still, I am not aware that we have closed in on any viable hypothesis for the spontaneous development of the first DNA.
BTW, something like "it came from RNA" is not a viable hypothesis, because its nowhere near specific enough to qualify as anything more than a conjecture. I am aware that RNA can perform both the information function of DNA and the some of the structural / catalytic functions of protein, and so could have been the first step. But going from there to a DNA based bacterium is still a leap at this point. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
I believe that the investigators into abiogenesis are concentrating on RNA right now. They seem to believe that RNA to DNA was a later stage in the development of life. Hmm. Maybe an interesting subject to Google search.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#144388 Jul 27, 2013
Hmm, interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2152879...

The scientist being discussed believes that DNA may have occurred naturally before life. He is researching how DNA could naturally occur and is very close. He propose that early life could have use naturally occurring RNA and DNA as when it started.

So DNA would predate life. The starting point of life being when a simple protocell "learned" how to split its DNA and pass it on.

One thing about scientific experiments and research, even if you are wrong in your initial approach you can use your failures to help you to learn more about how to get to your goal.

The creatards don't do that. They are happy enough to say "God did it!" when they fail

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144389 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The man said and has said more than once that life only appears to be designed... Ok got that so far?... I said it appears to be because it is...
Nothing is taken out of context!! No big great conspiracy... Sorry Charlie Brown... Everyone knows where Dawkins stands if they have read any of his books... Which btw I'm shocked that only one of you has.... I stand by what I said...
Charles Darwin did not invent the idea that things evolved. An old earth and change in creatures over time were already understood based on evidence before he offered his theory. He even started out convinced that things were designed. It was of course Darwin (not Dawkins) who proposed the MECHANISM by which things could change and evolve over time. And he did so knowing the counter argument so well that he could quote the famous Paley and his Watchmaker argument verbatim.

You say natural selection is magic. Nothing could be more silly. Its a simple mechanism that anyone can understand. Each time you call it "the god" you sound less like someone who can be taken seriously. Might as well talk about the gods gravitation and electron.

Dawkins was on shaky ground when he went headlong against the God concept. He had his reasons. But before that he wrote very good books explaining Darwin's theory and offering the modern take on it.
Mugwump

Leeds, UK

#144390 Jul 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Arguing with the evolutionists robs here is nothing more than a hate feat and a lesson in futility.
How would you know ?

You just post your ideas then refuse to discuss them as you know they are BS.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#144391 Jul 27, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The man said and has said more than once that life only appears to be designed... Ok got that so far?... I said it appears to be because it is...
Nothing is taken out of context!! No big great conspiracy... Sorry Charlie Brown... Everyone knows where Dawkins stands if they have read any of his books... Which btw I'm shocked that only one of you has.... I stand by what I said...
And no, I do not believe you have read any of Dawkins' science books. I believe you are relying on quote mining anti evolution sources for all your info on what Dawkins supposedly said.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min Patrick 18,556
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 58 min It aint necessari... 204,981
Questions about first life 1 hr FallenGeologist 3
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Chimney1 43,208
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 3 hr One way or another 6
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 3 hr FallenGeologist 35
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 13 hr One way or another 2
More from around the web