Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179735 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148626 Aug 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we already know God doesn't work that way. He gave us free will. So bottom line you can talk all you want about survival and selection but prophase I recombination is where the road meets the rubber bitch.
Nobody knows anything about a thing that has not been demonstrated to exist.

What is bigfoot's favorite food? What do loch ness monster turds smell like? What is a leprechaun's maximum height?

You are merely making claims. You don't actually KNOW anything about God, any more than I know anything about loch ness monster turds.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148627 Aug 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And what has evolution done for mankind expect kill him and serious retard science?
It has killed serious retard science. The serious retards were quite disappointed at that outcome.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148628 Aug 22, 2013
Now again I am not picking on evolution. But you all have said several times how by the bible incest had to happen to repopulate the planet. Well your God/Founder of evolution pretty much did just that by marring his wife Emma who was his first cousin.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148629 Aug 22, 2013
Now for the creationists. Some from the bible, some about the bible.

10 Things You Didn't Know About The Bible



I didn't know that Jesus supposedly had several brothers and sisters. The most famous one was James the Just.

2 kings 23-24 - From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him.“Get out of here, baldy!” they said.“Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

^^^^^ The above sounds pretty harsh to me ^^^^^

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148630 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Now again I am not picking on evolution. But you all have said several times how by the bible incest had to happen to repopulate the planet. Well your God/Founder of evolution pretty much did just that by marring his wife Emma who was his first cousin.
Not necessarily. There are several states in the U.S. where this is not considered incest.

It was not considered incest in those days either.

You have to judge a man by the standard of his time.

And it is not picking on the Bible to point out that it supports very close incest several times.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148631 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Now again I am not picking on evolution. But you all have said several times how by the bible incest had to happen to repopulate the planet. Well your God/Founder of evolution pretty much did just that by marring his wife Emma who was his first cousin.
So? I didn't see Darwin ever say that's what anybody else should do. What is your point?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#148632 Aug 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now you raise the bar to cards specifically. How convenient. I thought shuffling would have been sufficient.
Raise the bar? It was your analogy. In fact you wanted to shuffle the deck twice.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148633 Aug 22, 2013
Here is a nice video for Urban Cowboy and others that deny the existence of vestigial organs. By the way, the appendix and tailbone are vestigial. Just because their use change does not mean that they are not vestigial:

&fe ature=youtu.be&t=18m47s

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148634 Aug 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So? I didn't see Darwin ever say that's what anybody else should do. What is your point?
My point is in your answer. The word being "SO". Both sides have a believe and like it or not both sides overlook many things on their belief and continue defending it. The only thing different between creationists and evolutionists is what they believe and defend. For both defend their belief whole heartedly and all they can, anytime they can.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148635 Aug 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Here is a nice video for Urban Cowboy and others that deny the existence of vestigial organs. By the way, the appendix and tailbone are vestigial. Just because their use change does not mean that they are not vestigial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RSRc1G45M48XX&feature=you tu.be&t=18m47s
The problem I have with the Coccyx supposedly being the remnants of a tail is; Most tails I have seen on animals protrude/curve out toward the backside, even in the skeletons. If you look at the Coccyx it bends toward our front, not toward our backside. Plus it is an anchor point for several muscles and tendons.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148636 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem I have with the Coccyx supposedly being the remnants of a tail is; Most tails I have seen on animals protrude/curve out toward the backside, even in the skeletons. If you look at the Coccyx it bends toward our front, not toward our backside. Plus it is an anchor point for several muscles and tendons.
That's right it is vestigial. Once characteristic of vestigial organs is that they very often take on different roles, or the roles they had can change over years. It is a rarity, but some people are still born with tails:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images...

From the Wiki article on "Human vestigality":
Coccyx[edit source | editbeta]
The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[14] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[15] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further.
In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148637 Aug 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right it is vestigial. Once characteristic of vestigial organs is that they very often take on different roles, or the roles they had can change over years. It is a rarity, but some people are still born with tails:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images...
From the Wiki article on "Human vestigality":
<quoted text>
Some people are also born with more fingers or toes but I don't see any ancestors that needed them.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#148638 Aug 22, 2013
Evolution is science and not a belief system. The relationship of Darwin and his wife is well known and completely irrelevant the validity of the theory. This point is a trivial note in Darwin's history and such marriages were not uncommon at the time.

It bears no relevance to the conclusion that a small population of people would likely have to commit incest in order to reproduce. It is merely pointed out to fundamentalists that maintain a literal translation of the Bible, because that BELIEF system has prohibitions on incest. I imagine the people that point this out enjoy the point that in order to accept one aspect of a literal interpretation, this darker aspect has to be accepted as well.

None of this has any meaning to accepting the science of evolution and is not an example of hypocrisy by science.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148639 Aug 23, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Raise the bar? It was your analogy. In fact you wanted to shuffle the deck twice.
Did you fall asleep during your Berkeley lectures? There ARE two levels of genetic variation created during Meiosis I. The first occurs during Prophase I called Homologous Recombination (The mechanics of this is what I am focused on). The second occurs immediately following during Metaphase I called Independent Assortment. Both are commonly referred as a "shuffling" throughout texts and research papers; even in the recent paper I just linked here!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148640 Aug 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Evolution is science and not a belief system. The relationship of Darwin and his wife is well known and completely irrelevant the validity of the theory. This point is a trivial note in Darwin's history and such marriages were not uncommon at the time.
It bears no relevance to the conclusion that a small population of people would likely have to commit incest in order to reproduce. It is merely pointed out to fundamentalists that maintain a literal translation of the Bible, because that BELIEF system has prohibitions on incest. I imagine the people that point this out enjoy the point that in order to accept one aspect of a literal interpretation, this darker aspect has to be accepted as well.
None of this has any meaning to accepting the science of evolution and is not an example of hypocrisy by science.
The only thing wrong with incest now is the high risk of birth defects due to accumulated deleterious mutations caused by genetic entropy. It would not have been a problem when the genome was free of mutations and only became immoral by social conditioning over time.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148641 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Here is a nice video for Urban Cowboy and others that deny the existence of vestigial organs. By the way, the appendix and tailbone are vestigial. Just because their use change does not mean that they are not vestigial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =RSRc1G45M48XX&feature=you tu.be&t=18m47s
There are NO vestigial organs. They are pure myth perpetuated by the evotards.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148642 Aug 23, 2013
I have seen it argued here how multicellular life could come from a single cell. Well we all start out as a single cell, a Zygote which is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through Mitosis, the process of cell division.

A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.

So by this, a single cell can and does produce a multi cell living thing/person/or what ever you want to call it.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148643 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
I have seen it argued here how multicellular life could come from a single cell. Well we all start out as a single cell, a Zygote which is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through Mitosis, the process of cell division.
A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.
So by this, a single cell can and does produce a multi cell living thing/person/or what ever you want to call it.
No...the cell was the product of many.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#148644 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No...the cell was the product of many.
How can someone as stupid as you operate a computer?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#148645 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
I have seen it argued here how multicellular life could come from a single cell. Well we all start out as a single cell, a Zygote which is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through Mitosis, the process of cell division.
A zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell.
So by this, a single cell can and does produce a multi cell living thing/person/or what ever you want to call it.
How can you be this stupid and still breathe?

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) 1 min scientia potentia... 216,865
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min replaytime 23,558
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Into The Night 48,772
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min It aint necessari... 154,808
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 13 hr GoTrump 1,044
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Mon Timmee 9
More from around the web