Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#150904 Sep 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your real name Earnest T. Bass?
I would be "against" performing C-14 dating of a 67 myo specimen for the same reason I've already written. It would be like giving the father a pregnancy test. The results would be useless. Predictably, only you and HST seem to be oblivious to that.
Tell me specifically what "dogma" I have defended - or even stated? I seriously doubt your troupe can even distinguish what a dogma IS.
There is no such thing as "evoism" or "evo-religion." Stop pretending that you can think for yourself when you just parrot the same old crap you've seen Creationists post.
What a load of BS...
So you wouldn't subject a father to a pregnancy test for a $20,000 grant?
One way or another

United States

#150905 Sep 9, 2013
I'd like for HTS to critique my work.

dizzy earth

Science by Jim Ryan

Ask any person to spin around 30 times and see what happens as they spin on their feet at maybe 3 miles an hour.

Then all we need do is consider how the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in a circle and yet, none show signs of dizziness or sickness from such.

The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy. There may be just certain cells in our equilibrium center within our ears that have these super fast spinning cells or it could be all of our cells. Since science claims it can't tell how fast our cells are spinning, then science has no way to know. My theory on this is the very first of its kind and no one can prove it wrong.

Any extra spin creates dizziness at the least, implying a pretty delicate balance, but hey, can you or science or anyone give a better reason for such.

Testing spin on bacteria

Another thought.

More science by Jim Ryan

Testing!

What if science gave extra spin to more creatures, great and small, even bacteria, would bacteria incorporate something else to deal with the extra spin? Could scientists see any differences under a scope, after spinning?

What could science offer bacteria to deal with the extra spin? What could bacteria offer to science in that instance? In other words, how would bacteria act physically.

Another thought

I think we've all seen schools of fish swimming in circles, surely that has something to teach about spin, as they do it on purpose.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150906 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You know perfectly well what I meant.
You are afraid to have the sample tested by a reputable laboratory, because you are afraid that is will demolish your evo-religion. Just listen to Horner's pathetic excuses...
Bub, according to you there ARE no reputable labs.

Science does not exist.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150907 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You know perfectly well what I meant.
I only know what you posted.
HTS wrote:
You are afraid to have the sample tested by a reputable laboratory, because you are afraid that is will demolish your evo-religion.
I'm not afraid of that in the slightest. However, I find it easy to understand why some are not interested in wasting their time on a fools errand.
HTS wrote:
Just listen to Horner's pathetic excuses...
Nah. I've listened to more than enough of yours.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150909 Sep 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And right there is your error. It decays at the same rate. It doesn't get faster as it gets smaller.
But he was using LOGIC!!!

>:-(

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150910 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I use many things in science to discredit science. Seems to me, HTS is just using the parameters science sets out, to show how science is wrong in another way.
I believe c14 testing is bogus, but, since I am forced to deal with it, I'm not beyond using it, to prove how stupid science and evoisim are.
Since you evos hate what HTS says, you would be too ignorant to see how HTS's mind works and why.
Quite amusing that you pretend to have even the faintest idea of how carbon dating works.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#150912 Sep 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And right there is your error. It decays at the same rate. It doesn't get faster as it gets smaller.
When half life is gone they start all over with a new 5730 years on what is left. How does that actually work?

Saying 3 percent down to 1.5 percent takes 5730 years to decay same as 50 percent down to 25 percent takes 5730 years to decay makes no sense. Like I said I don't know much about it that is why I am asking.
One way or another

United States

#150913 Sep 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering a process and all of it's variables, strengths and weaknesses is called "honesty." Not something you seem to put much stock in. Is that a shortcoming of your imperfect nature or a perfect application from the "intelligent design" handbook?
Lying for Jesus won't get you points at the Pearly Gate. Mind your 9th commandment.
In HTS's last 10 posts, show where HTS used religion as a crutch. All I've seen from HTS is science and logic.

You evos hide behind religion when you can't answer, just as you do now.
One way or another

United States

#150914 Sep 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that's not the case.
At all.
These are all scientific statements because they are all falsifiable. If we in the future come across a car that can run without fuel then the statement can't run without fuel would be falsified. It is not, and never has been "100% proven". In order for that to be the case you would have to test that claim against every single car that has ever existed, or ever will. Which you won't be able to do until the end of the universe is reached.(Then you will not be able to test your claim then either, but that's another matter).
Oh, by the way. Here's a car running without any fuel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_YHjQNCw8kEXX
So when you run 15 miles an hour and ram your head into a concrete wall with no protection, tell us how that works out for ya. Lmao
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150915 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I'd like for HTS to critique my work.
dizzy earth
Science by Jim Ryan
Ask any person to spin around 30 times and see what happens as they spin on their feet at maybe 3 miles an hour.
Then all we need do is consider how the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in a circle and yet, none show signs of dizziness or sickness from such.
The above implies that our cells are spinning to match the earths amount of spin or everybody would be sick and dizzy. There may be just certain cells in our equilibrium center within our ears that have these super fast spinning cells or it could be all of our cells. Since science claims it can't tell how fast our cells are spinning, then science has no way to know. My theory on this is the very first of its kind and no one can prove it wrong.
Any extra spin creates dizziness at the least, implying a pretty delicate balance, but hey, can you or science or anyone give a better reason for such.
Testing spin on bacteria
Another thought.
More science by Jim Ryan
Testing!
What if science gave extra spin to more creatures, great and small, even bacteria, would bacteria incorporate something else to deal with the extra spin? Could scientists see any differences under a scope, after spinning?
What could science offer bacteria to deal with the extra spin? What could bacteria offer to science in that instance? In other words, how would bacteria act physically.
Another thought
I think we've all seen schools of fish swimming in circles, surely that has something to teach about spin, as they do it on purpose.
Well, HTS has already said he can't find any fault with it - so sure he will be happy to oblige and confirm his scientific credentials.

Over to you HTS , I know I had to ask 4 times, but you do a habit of ignoring awkward questions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150918 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
I donít know a lot about carbon 14 dating but if half-life of 100% down to 50% is 5,730 years and half-life of 50% down to 25% if another 5,730 and the half-life of 25% down to 12.5% is another 5,730 so on and so on. I really donít see how that works. For the smaller the percentage gets the longer it lasts?
This may not be a good comparison but the smaller a pond gets, the faster it dries up. The smaller a block of ice gets, the faster it melts. Logic would make one think the smaller something gets, the faster it will deteriorate. If 6% of carbon 14 will have a half-life of 5,730 years same as 50% will have a half-life of 5,730 years. How does that actually work?
When you have a sample of radioactive material the various atoms all decay without any regard for the other atoms.

So if I have a pound of C14 in 5,700 years I will have half a pound.

If I have a ton of C14 in 5,700 years I will have half a ton.

And the clock could be said to be reset at any time when you have an accurate measure of the C14. It works backwards too.

If a sample has a micorgram of C14 5,700 years ago it had two micrograms. It does not matter how much we have at any time the rate of decay is constant.
One way or another

United States

#150919 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When half life is gone they start all over with a new 5730 years on what is left. How does that actually work?
Saying 3 percent down to 1.5 percent takes 5730 years to decay same as 50 percent down to 25 percent takes 5730 years to decay makes no sense. Like I said I don't know much about it that is why I am asking.
I don't know much about this, but you might think of it in this way, the more radiation an isotope has, the hotter it burns, so once half of the radioactive isotope that burns off is gone, the slower the isotope burns.

Just one way to look at it and it doesn't mean its right.
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150920 Sep 9, 2013
Oh - and has one noticed Jimbos enhancement to his science ?

Strange that he added it AFTER about a week of me telling him that we don't observe cells spinning as he suggests, but BEFORE he has to submit it to peer-review by HTS.

I'll start brushing of my Tux for the joint Nobel prize presentation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150921 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When half life is gone they start all over with a new 5730 years on what is left. How does that actually work?
Saying 3 percent down to 1.5 percent takes 5730 years to decay same as 50 percent down to 25 percent takes 5730 years to decay makes no sense. Like I said I don't know much about it that is why I am asking.
The important thing to remember is that no atom of C14 can "remember" its past. We can calculate the half life. We could also calculate the 1/6 life if we wanted to or any other fraction. The half life is an almost instinctual amount to define. We know that half of a sample will be gone within a certain time period if there were a thousand atoms or a mole of atoms the amount that would be left after a half life would be half of the original amount.

Of course this concept does start to fail when we get down to just a few atoms. The numbers are not so predictable then. But in nature we are always working with very high populations and statistical analysis applies.
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#150922 Sep 9, 2013
Until science proves something is wrong, it is proven correct and that's all we have to go on each day.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150923 Sep 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I only know what you posted.
<quoted text>
I'm not afraid of that in the slightest. However, I find it easy to understand why some are not interested in wasting their time on a fools errand.
<quoted text>
Nah. I've listened to more than enough of yours.
How is a $20,000 grant "wasting their time on a fools errand?"
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150924 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Limey bastard that no one in his own country wants to hear from.
Go home moron.
Which reminds me , question for The Dude, meant to ask as you are, like me a frequent flyer to this American website -

how do you handle the jetlag?
have you ever had problems at customs ?
Do you get dollars before to visit Topix or simply use a cash point when you arrive?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#150927 Sep 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The important thing to remember is that no atom of C14 can "remember" its past. We can calculate the half life. We could also calculate the 1/6 life if we wanted to or any other fraction. The half life is an almost instinctual amount to define. We know that half of a sample will be gone within a certain time period if there were a thousand atoms or a mole of atoms the amount that would be left after a half life would be half of the original amount.
Of course this concept does start to fail when we get down to just a few atoms. The numbers are not so predictable then. But in nature we are always working with very high populations and statistical analysis applies.
I know you are going to say "half-life" but that still doesn't add up to how a small 1.5 percent will decay at the same rate as a larger 25 percent.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150928 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I'd like for HTS to critique my work.
dizzy earth
Somebody PLEASE post this to FSTDT!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150929 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
In HTS's last 10 posts, show where HTS used religion as a crutch. All I've seen from HTS is science and logic.
You evos hide behind religion when you can't answer, just as you do now.
Right, so in ALL THIS TIME you've NEVER seen HTS complain about "atheism", even when atheism is never mentioned? Bullshit, Jimbo.

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
One species or three 1 hr replaytime 13
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 61,602
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Dogen 220,717
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Dogen 2,721
Curious dilemma about DNA 9 hr Dogen 14
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 hr Subduction Zone 160,325
More from around the web