Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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!

#148768 Aug 23, 2013
Stingray wrote:
<quoted text>
Not talking behind his back, so I can say LowellGuy comes to mind. Did Darwin's world not seem to revolve around proving his theory?
I am probably misusing the term to some extent. Using terms like what you believe, or how you perceive things to be don't seem to register with evolutionists, and they don't form opinions without scientific evidence. If one believes the world and everything in it "is what it is" as a result of evolution, would you not consider that their worldview?
And if a person places his faith and trust in a Supreme Being who is creator of all things and gives all things meaning and purpose, would you not consider that a worldview?
U R dum lol
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148769 Aug 23, 2013
OK, so we have my Cowboy's Rule all setup...

"All plants and animals have potentially unlimited genetic variation, but are restricted to their own kind, regardless of ancestry or time.

And have so far clearly supported - with scientific evidence - "ULIMITED GENETIC VARIATION"...

...By showing that the processes of Random Fertilization, Crossing Over, and Independent Assortment of Chromosomes provide far in excess of 70 trillion (2^23 X 2^23) combinations plus the variation brought about by crossing over, "that the possibilities are truly astronomical."

-Campbell, Biology, 8th Ed.

And now ready to clarify REGARDLESS OF ANCESTRY OR TIME. This requires qualification as follows: Regardless of "In Kind" ancestry.(Which avoids any conflict (for the moment).

So becomes:

"All plants and animals have potentially unlimited genetic variation, but are restricted to their own kind, regardless of (In-Kind) ancestry or time.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148770 Aug 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are lobsters and sharks a single kind? Ants and centipedes? Worms and nematodes?
You really need to educate yourself.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148771 Aug 23, 2013
(Correction)

OK, so we have my Cowboy's Rule all setup...

"All plants and animals have potentially unlimited genetic variation, but are restricted to their own kind, regardless of ancestry or time.

And have so far clearly supported - with scientific evidence - "ULIMITED GENETIC VARIATION"...

...By showing that the processes of Random Fertilization and Independent Assortment of Chromosomes (Meiosis I/Metaphase I) provide far in excess of 70 trillion (2^23 X 2^23) combinations plus the variation brought about by crossing over (Meiosis I/Prophase I), "that the possibilities are truly astronomical."

-Campbell, Biology, 8th Ed.

And now ready to clarify REGARDLESS OF ANCESTRY OR TIME. This requires qualification as follows: Regardless of "In Kind" ancestry.(Which avoids any conflict (for the moment).

So becomes:

"All plants and animals have potentially unlimited genetic variation, but are restricted to their own kind, regardless of (In-Kind) ancestry or time.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148772 Aug 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Was a Neanderthal a human kind?
Denisova?
Heidelbergensis?
Habilis?
Egaster?
Australopithecus?
Which are and which are not human "Kind"?
Some are and some aren't. Neanderthal definitely was. Australopithecus definitely was not. Who cares?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148773 Aug 23, 2013
Cowboy, that sounds a lot like the rule of clades.

Once you are in a clade there is no crossing to another clade. Yet your clade can, and does share a common ancestor with another clade.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148774 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Some are and some aren't. Neanderthal definitely was. Australopithecus definitely was not. Who cares?
Since we are descended from them you should care.

So when did we become "human kind"?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148775 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Cowboy, that sounds a lot like the rule of clades.
Once you are in a clade there is no crossing to another clade. Yet your clade can, and does share a common ancestor with another clade.
Yes, it is very similar:

"ReMine's work specified four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things.[10] These groups correspond to the concepts of holophyly, monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics."

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

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148776 Aug 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Cowboy, that sounds a lot like the rule of clades.
Once you are in a clade there is no crossing to another clade. Yet your clade can, and does share a common ancestor with another clade.
Obviously I don't accept your last statement about sharing a common ancestor with another clade!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148777 Aug 23, 2013
Since it seems like the conversation is in this thread I will ask my question in this thread as well.

Going back, what are the last four starting at humans that are in the evolution line?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148778 Aug 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously I don't accept your last statement about sharing a common ancestor with another clade!
Why not? It is what all of the evidence points to. None of it points to individual creation.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148779 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? It is what all of the evidence points to. None of it points to individual creation.
The opposite is true!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148780 Aug 24, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The opposite is true!
Urb, no lying.

You know if that were the case you creatards would not continually get your butts kicked in court. Courts of laws are based upon evidence. We have it, you don't.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148781 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? It is what all of the evidence points to. None of it points to individual creation.
But one can also say that everything on this earth is a creation of their parents/ancestors. For to evolve to something new, the new has to be created somewhere.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148782 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But one can also say that everything on this earth is a creation of their parents/ancestors. For to evolve to something new, the new has to be created somewhere.
Don't play games.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148783 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't play games.
Were you a creation from your parents or did you evolve from your parents?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148784 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you a creation from your parents or did you evolve from your parents?
Poor use of terminology. That is not consistent with the discussion.

So if we use evolve and create as we have been the answer is no.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148785 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor use of terminology. That is not consistent with the discussion.
So if we use evolve and create as we have been the answer is no.
The answer is not a yes or no. The answer is a choice. Again are you a creation of your parents or did you evolve from your parents?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148786 Aug 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is not a yes or no. The answer is a choice. Again are you a creation of your parents or did you evolve from your parents?
The answer is still no.

Your logical error is "false dichotomy".

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148787 Aug 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer is still no.
Your logical error is "false dichotomy".
Ok you say my error is by making the assumption that there are only two positions. Is there more that I do not see? If so list them.

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) 2 min replaytime 66,321
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 17 min River Tam 28,467
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Agents of Corruption 221,195
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr River Tam 160,830
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Eagle 12 3,417
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 3 hr Dogen 79
What does the theory of evolution state? 3 hr Dogen 103
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 8 hr Subduction Zone 137
More from around the web