Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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 No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#148646 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are NO vestigial organs. They are pure myth perpetuated by the evotards.
Gallbladder.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#148647 Aug 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How can someone as stupid as you operate a computer?
He isn't stupid, he's a professional liar for Jesus.
But he is deluded into thinking he will get paid by having an afterlife.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148648 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are NO vestigial organs. They are pure myth perpetuated by the evotards.
You complete lying moron.

I can see that you did not watch the video that I provided.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148649 Aug 23, 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
Sorry, guy is no more worshipped than Newton or Einstein. The fundies like to pretend it's that way because they cannot comprehend the concept that people think differently than they do.
replaytime wrote:
pretty much did just that by marring his wife Emma who was his first cousin.
It's much less of a problem than actually getting with your sister. Which in the creationist's case causes mankind to die off.

However Cowboy on numerous occasions has supported in the fam nooknook.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148650 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Actually you misunderstand. Belief is superfluous when one has evidence. Evolution has it, creationism doesn't. That's why we have evolutionary biologists, and creation biologists don't exist.

And so far none have been able to falsify evolution. Least of all you or Cowboy.

What's the definition of "kind" again?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148651 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hey bub, what you do with your sis ain't our business.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148652 Aug 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How can someone as stupid as you operate a computer?
It's A MIRACLE!!!

:-D
Believer

Manchester, TN

#148653 Aug 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how hard you try to believe we do, no, we don't. We propose a knowable, natural, and non mysterious mechanism for change, not a supernatural one..And then we see if reality matches it. So far so good.
"Reality, the state or quality of having existance or substance."

Life is a reality. Death is a reality. Suffering, pain, evil is a reality. Love, joy, kindness are all reality in the lives of all of us. To many of us, God is the ultimate answer to our questions about this reality.

Evolution is a reality. At least the evidence found in science suggests that it is. It certainly is to many intelligent knowledgable people like you.
Most people who believe in God would not deny that scientists have found evidence of evolution in nature. We just don't make evolution the basis for our worldview.

We choose to seek purpose and reason for all the things you seem to disregard as reality in life.

Reality you can see and hold in your hand. Reality you can feel and hold in your.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#148654 Aug 23, 2013
Heart.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148655 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Darwin's personal life has nothing to do with the validity of his scientific contributions. Utterly irrelevant. If your doctor is a smoker, and he tells you that you need to quit smoking because you've got emphysema, do you just disregard it because he's a smoker, or is his smoking irrelevant to his ability to diagnose your medical condition?

Science isn't about belief wholly. It's about beliefs that are supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by so much evidence that it's preposterous to reject it. The claim of "God did it with magic" is supported by so little evidence that it's preposterous to accept it. But, creationists focus their attack on "you're just as dumb as we are!" Well, we aren't. We base our understanding of reality on evidence. They base it on ancient stories and logical fallacies. If you want to equivocate the two, that's your prerogative, but it's dishonest and stupid.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#148656 Aug 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
For all you know, you cousins were messy turds. Don't think so? Prove it. ;o ). Smile LG. it won't kill you.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148657 Aug 23, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are also born with more fingers or toes but I don't see any ancestors that needed them.
The difference is, fingers are things we ALREADY HAVE. That's mere duplication. Tails are things we DON'T HAVE. Why would humans be able to grow tails if we were never supposed to have tails in the first place? ANSWER: our DNA comes from a lineage that includes ancestors that had tails. Or, the ever popular, "God can do whatever he wants." Which is the more reasonable answer? The one based on evidence, or the one based on legends and myths and an unfalsifiable magical wizard for whom there is absolutely zero evidence?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148658 Aug 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gallbladder.
The gallbladder functions as an interface between the liver and the small intestine where digestion occurs. The liver produces bile which is necessary for digestion of fats. The gallbladder provides storage of the bile from the liver and administers and a precise metered flow to the small intestines as needed.

Yes, it is possible to survive without it. Just like any other diseased tissue, organ, or limb, if it becomes a threat to life it can be removed; but if it is not diseased or damaged, a person is healthier to keep it than to remove it.

The gallbladder has a designed purpose and no; it is not a useless, vestigial organ.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148659 Aug 23, 2013
"When food containing fat (and amino acids) enters the digestive tract, it stimulates the secretion of cholecystokinin (CCK) from I cells of the duodenum and jejunum. In response to CCK, the adult human gallbladder, which stores about 50 millilitres (1.7 U.S. fl oz; 1.8 imp fl oz) of bile, contracts and releases its contents into the duodenum. The bile, originally produced in the liver, emulsifies fats in partly digested food.

During storage in the gallbladder, bile becomes more concentrated which increases its potency and intensifies its effect on fats.

In 2009, it was proposed that the gallbladder can produce several pancreatic hormones, including insulin.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallbladder
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148660 Aug 23, 2013
"Islet-like cell clusters occur naturally in human gall bladder and are retained in diabetic conditions."

"Though we presently do not understand the mechanisms that contribute to generation of hormone-producing cells in human gall bladder, these observations reveal that gall bladder epithelial cells can be a potentially important source of islet progenitors for cell replacement therapy in diabetes."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#148661 Aug 23, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
"Reality, the state or quality of having existance or substance."
Life is a reality. Death is a reality. Suffering, pain, evil is a reality. Love, joy, kindness are all reality in the lives of all of us. To many of us, God is the ultimate answer to our questions about this reality.
Evolution is a reality. At least the evidence found in science suggests that it is. It certainly is to many intelligent knowledgable people like you.
Most people who believe in God would not deny that scientists have found evidence of evolution in nature. We just don't make evolution the basis for our worldview.
{snip}
You weren't doing too bad up until this point. I honestly can't think of anyone who makes evolution the basis for their worldview. It may influence it, it may be part of it. But I doubt anyone's 'worldview' is based solely on evolution. That would be some severely limited thinking.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148662 Aug 23, 2013
So Urb, why not address some of the vestiges in this video. For example the vestigial wing of the Emu. Do you think that it can fly with that wing. Worse yet how about the claw on that wing? The "Dew claw" of dogs? The heel pad of dogs that never touches the ground. There are more.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148663 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So Urb, why not address some of the vestiges in this video. For example the vestigial wing of the Emu. Do you think that it can fly with that wing. Worse yet how about the claw on that wing? The "Dew claw" of dogs? The heel pad of dogs that never touches the ground. There are more.
I have two dogs (A Beagle and a Terrier Mix) and give them beef bones and they use the dew claws to grip the bones when they chew them. If they didn't have the dew claws they would have a hard time holding up the bone. They also use them for grooming and scratching. Another myth.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#148664 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have two dogs (A Beagle and a Terrier Mix) and give them beef bones and they use the dew claws to grip the bones when they chew them. If they didn't have the dew claws they would have a hard time holding up the bone. They also use them for grooming and scratching. Another myth.
Point taken. From Wiki:
"The dewclaws are not dead appendages. They can be used to lightly grip bones and other items that dogs hold with the paws. However, in some dogs these claws may not appear to be connected to the leg at all except by a flap of skin; in such dogs the claws do not have a use for gripping as the claw can easily fold or turn."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_claw
One way or another

United States

#148665 Aug 23, 2013
Emu? Emu are so adorned with feathers for survival in many different climates. Emu's never flew.

Look at all the flightless birds.

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question8952.h...

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min The Northener 51,394
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 min It aint necessari... 157,370
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 38 min Into The Night 24,645
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,719
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 5 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 10 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 10 hr Dogen 90
More from around the web