Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 7,280)

Showing posts 145,581 - 145,600 of171,247
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149293
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone that claims to be educated and knowledgeable on anything does not resort to childish name calling and ridiculing. But hey I guess in science idiot and moron and such are on the top of their vocabulary.
When people want to be taken seriously or respected for their knowledge name calling is the last way they will get either.
And to use name calling in an example "Any fool would know that!"
Sure they do. At times we have to let off steam. Urb is a perfect fool to vent at since he will never learn.

Besides it is not childish to call a moron who keeps putting himself out in public a moron. If there was the slightest chance that Urb could learn anything I would treat him with more respect. I treated him with respect in the past. That was a mistake. All he did was to disrespect me. So Urb is a living target. He is an idiot begging that others point out how idiotic he is.

Sometimes I humor him.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149294
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they do. At times we have to let off steam. Urb is a perfect fool to vent at since he will never learn.
Besides it is not childish to call a moron who keeps putting himself out in public a moron. If there was the slightest chance that Urb could learn anything I would treat him with more respect. I treated him with respect in the past. That was a mistake. All he did was to disrespect me. So Urb is a living target. He is an idiot begging that others point out how idiotic he is.
Sometimes I humor him.
But you only see him as a moron because he believes in God more than evolution which is what you believe in.

I f I believe that going 340mph through a 1/4 mile is more thrilling and fun than watching a bunch of idiots drive around a circle track 200 times at 200 am I an idiot? No I am not. It is what I like and find more appealing to me.

We are all different and we believe and find what we want appealing to us. Like the old saying goes there are some that believe fire is hot but then again there are some that have to stick their hand in the fire to find out. Now does that make the one that stuck his hand in the fire an idiot or does it now make the one that stuck his hand in the fire more knowledgeable because he has a better understanding of how hot the fire is?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149295
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Chimney1 wrote:
And we know they are the source of new variation as opposed to recombination of existing genes which is what the process of meiosis is all about. That is a reshuffling of existing genes, taking ay random one copy out of 2 that a parent has and forming a new genome with another parent's similarly compiled composite.
Evolution requires mitation. Period.
But you are not going near far enough! According to evolution, ALL the information in the genome is created by mutation, including the information that causes meiosis and fertilization. So what you are describing besides mutations is variation by design. That's my point.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149296
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont talk utter tosh. We know what mutations are, such as copying errors. Base substitutions, insertions, deletions, sequence duplicatioms large and small.
We know they can becaused by chemicals, radiation, etc.
And we know they are the source of new variation as opposed to recombination of existing genes which is what the process of meiosis is all about. That is a reshuffling of existing genes, taking ay random one copy out of 2 that a parent has and forming a new genome with another parent's similarly compiled composite.
Evolution requires mitation. Period.
Genetic mutations can occur only during the following three processes: 1. Meiosis (independent assortment and recombination), 2. Spontaneously (by whatever cause) during the lifetime of the gametes (sperm/ovum), or 3. Random fertilization.

Does macroevolution/transmutation of species therefore depend 100% ENTIRELY on random mutations that occur during one or more of these three genetic processes? Yes or No?

Barring any mutations, will offspring in an isolated population remain a similar species as their parents regardless of ancestry or time? Yes or No?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149297
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But you are not going near far enough! According to evolution, ALL the information in the genome is created by mutation, including the information that causes meiosis and fertilization. So what you are describing besides mutations is variation by design. That's my point.
Sorry but once again there is no logical connection between your second and third sentence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149298
Aug 29, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutations can occur only during the following three processes: 1. Meiosis (independent assortment and recombination), 2. Spontaneously (by whatever cause) during the lifetime of the gametes (sperm/ovum), or 3. Random fertilization.
Does macroevolution/transmutation of species therefore depend 100% ENTIRELY on random mutations that occur during one or more of these three genetic processes? Yes or No?
Barring any mutations, will offspring in an isolated population remain a similar species as their parents regardless of ancestry or time? Yes or No?
Evolution depends entirely on any mutations that affect the genes of the germ cells, in the case of sexual reproduction anyway. That does not apply to bacterial reproduction but lets go with your point....

Without mutations, a species will not evolve. Correct.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149299
Aug 29, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that language is becoming less complex despite an ever-expanding vocabulary that includes words from other languages from around the world, and that it is deteriorating despite more people (both as a quantity and as a proportion) being literate? I suppose that might be true among a certain population that treats words like "theory" as meaning the same thing regardless of context. Does "run" only mean "rapid movement by means of pedal locomotion," no matter the context? Is it dishonest to pretend as though that is the only definition? Can we at least get you to admit that the "just a theory" line from creationists is equally dishonest?
The Oxford Dictionary just added the word, "Twerk". Does this mean English is becoming more complex?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/a...

What about the genetic code? Does longer DNA mean it's more complex too?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149300
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You were referring to this "big number" (which comes right out of a popular Biology text):
The processes of Random Fertilization and Independent Assortment of Chromosomes during Metaphase I, provide far in excess of 70 trillion (2^23 X 2^23) combinations multiplied by the variation brought about by the crossing over during recombination in Prophase I, "that the possibilities are truly astronomical."
So you say it "merely explains why every human (and every other sexually reproducing animal as well) is unique".
Think about what you just said. I just described the genetic processes for variation which did NOT include ANY mutations. So what you are referring to is DESIGNED VARIATION. How is it that we get all this genetic variation from the mechanisms of meiosis and fertilization? Very key point! Because it is designed into every sexually reproducing creature. But your evolution (The Primary Axiom says that ALL genetic variation MUST come from random mutations) and does not allow intelligent design, does it? So your statement above directly contradicts that.
When you begin with the assumption that it's designed, of course it's design. However, science doesn't assume design. Instead, science says "this occurs, and now we need to figure out how it occurs, and why it occurs that way." As soon as you can demonstrate that this process is designed and not merely the result of a mutation to an organism billions of years ago that allowed for sexual reproduction to occur, you will have a Nobel Prize and have proven intelligent design in some fashion. Now, all you need to do is a bunch of science, which is expensive in both time and money, and get your work published in a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal to demonstrate that you've followed the scientific method with all due rigor and exactitude. Good luck!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149301
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Oxford Dictionary just added the word, "Twerk". Does this mean English is becoming more complex?
Yep.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/ us/definition/american_english /twerk
What about the genetic code? Does longer DNA mean it's more complex too?
If an organism's genome is larger, the genome is more complex by definition, even if the organism is what we'd generally think of as "less complex." Of course, complexity is always relative. A larger genome is more complex than a smaller genome. An unicellular organism is less complex than a multicellular organism.

Think of it this way: Is a 50' ice sculpture of Zeus hurling a thunderbolt more or less complex than a chunk of granite that measures approximately 1' in diameter?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149302
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic mutations can occur only during the following three processes: 1. Meiosis (independent assortment and recombination), 2. Spontaneously (by whatever cause) during the lifetime of the gametes (sperm/ovum), or 3. Random fertilization.
Does macroevolution/transmutation of species therefore depend 100% ENTIRELY on random mutations that occur during one or more of these three genetic processes? Yes or No?
Barring any mutations, will offspring in an isolated population remain a similar species as their parents regardless of ancestry or time? Yes or No?
As soon as you can demonstrate a mutation-free genome, you win. Go for it!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149303
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
Another key point is that evolutionary scientists have been searching relentlessly for the first true information-creating genetic mutation, but still have not found it.
Think about how important this would be for them.
False, because the entire premise of "information-creating genetic mutation" is bullshit. We've already explained to you why, many times, so I'm not wasting my time doing it again just so you can ignore it again. Quit lying and saying stupid bullshit.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149304
Aug 29, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone that claims to be educated and knowledgeable on anything does not resort to childish name calling and ridiculing. But hey I guess in science idiot and moron and such are on the top of their vocabulary.
When people want to be taken seriously or respected for their knowledge name calling is the last way they will get either.
And to use name calling in an example "Any fool would know that!"
When someone has demonstrated that he is uninterested in learning and honesty yet declares everything he says as true because he says so, and has been shown the error in what he says repeatedly yet continues to repeat his original wrong assertions, what more is left? Mockery is a valid tool for demonstrating someone's obstinacy against learning. As soon as he decides he wants to learn and be honest with us and himself, the mockery will end full stop. He had been given more than enough respect and time and effort, and he's shat upon it over and over. He's earned every note of derision he receives.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149305
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Just an FYI. Some have wandered why I flip from side to side. That is easy. Sometimes I lose faith and think why. My oldest brother was killed by a drunk driver, I have two main views of him burnt in my mind,,, the night we ID'd him in the hospital/mortuary and the day at his funeral. My Mother died from a freak surg side affect, the two views I have of her burnt in my mind are the pain she was in after surg and her funeral. My other brother the two views I have of him burnt into my mind are of when we found him after he had been shot and his funeral. So HELL yes I lose faith sometimes but then again with my two daughters and grandson I still try to find reasons to have faith. I don't want your effin pity or BS so don't give it. I flip flop sometimes because I have reasons to do so. Like it or not that is me at this point. Deal with it or over look it. That is your choice!!!!

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149306
Aug 29, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
When someone has demonstrated that he is uninterested in learning and honesty yet declares everything he says as true because he says so, and has been shown the error in what he says repeatedly yet continues to repeat his original wrong assertions, what more is left? Mockery is a valid tool for demonstrating someone's obstinacy against learning. As soon as he decides he wants to learn and be honest with us and himself, the mockery will end full stop. He had been given more than enough respect and time and effort, and he's shat upon it over and over. He's earned every note of derision he receives.
"When someone has demonstrated that he is uninterested in learning and honesty yet declares everything he says as true because he says so"

Sorry man but you are not talking about me in your comment

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149307
Aug 29, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But you only see him as a moron because he believes in God more than evolution which is what you believe in.
I f I believe that going 340mph through a 1/4 mile is more thrilling and fun than watching a bunch of idiots drive around a circle track 200 times at 200 am I an idiot? No I am not. It is what I like and find more appealing to me.
We are all different and we believe and find what we want appealing to us. Like the old saying goes there are some that believe fire is hot but then again there are some that have to stick their hand in the fire to find out. Now does that make the one that stuck his hand in the fire an idiot or does it now make the one that stuck his hand in the fire more knowledgeable because he has a better understanding of how hot the fire is?
You're talking about opinion and comparing it to science. Science isn't opinion. Science is science. It eliminates bias and errors by its very nature. Urban Cowboy bastardizes the concept and thinks that bias is the very core of science, and then uses that bias as the foundation for his rationalizations of his religious beliefs. It's all post-hoc nonsense meant to quell the unease he feels because his Bible stories aren't reflected by demonstrable reality. He wouldn't be mocked if he said this, but what he says is that it's science, which it isn't. There is no opinion about what science is and isn't, any more than there's opinion about what is hydrogen and what isn't. Science is science. What he does and talks about isn't science. It's pseudoscience meant to trick the under-educated into thinking their superstitions are just as legitimate as anything else. That kind of wrong-headed bullshit needs to be called out and treated like what it is. To do any less is to encourage its continuance. Doing less is exactly why places like Texas and Kansas and Tennessee continually try to destroy science via school curricula. If you don't care about the state of education in America and our schools slipping even further behind the rest of the world than they already have, that's fine, but don't let your apathy get in the way of others who want to prevent that backslide.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149308
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Its just too bad so many scientists are idiots.

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.

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.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149309
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

More stupidity from scientists.

Science creates gravitational lensing, not the stars!!!

By Jim Ryan

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
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149310
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

More stupidity by science

Seeing back in time

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Science proves that two of the same types of light waves cancel each other out. Any stars light waves, can cancel out any other stars light waves or at the least, divert them to where science claims not to know.

The far away light waves never reach us, which means, we see out to those galaxies.

Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.

Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to those galaxies, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.

That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light, but science proves how much light breaks down in its retro reflector test from the earth to the moon and back. Science itself declares that the further away light gets from its source, the more it breaks down.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149311
Aug 29, 2013
 
When schools teach nothing more than cut and paste, why would anyone expect scientists to be anything more than cut and paste workers?

It would be stupid to expect more.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#149312
Aug 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

More scientific stupidity corrected.

Seeing galaxies right now

Science by Jim Ryan

Ya know how when you look into a telescope, you see everything that the telescope is focused in on, right away, there's no wait at all. However, science claims that it takes billions of light years for the light from those distant galaxies to get here. If the light takes so long to get here, how come when we look into the telescope, we see those galaxies as soon as we look in the eye piece?

Lets just say that science is right about the light, even though science proves that is a lie, by other means.

Even if the light does get here from those galaxies, those galaxies can't send pictures on just light waves.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 145,581 - 145,600 of171,247
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••