Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#152116 Sep 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>Asked this before , but as a creationist you suffer from fact blindness

Duplication, followed by mutation

Is this not new DNA.

Let the dodge times roll
Science has NEVER seen this myth of yours.

Science has never seen new DNA

Every example has lost DNA NEVER added any.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152118 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Micro evolution turning on and off existing genes.
That's all that has ever happened.
Macro evolution new DNA this has never happened.
If you have proof contrary to this show it.

"Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago. "---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Or in this case 160.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#152119 Sep 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Since when did you get your molecular biologists degree?
Or prove this hypothesis of yours, that shows natural selection doesn't produce change in the genome?
Fact

Micro evolution is turning on or off existing genes.

Science has never observed a new species with more DNA the its predecessor. This is fact no myth like your believes.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152120 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of Time.
You remember Time by all science accounts it can't exist. You do have a short memory. That brings us to another scientific theory, that memory and dick length go hand in hand.
Nope, not good enough.

You clearly don't know what scientific evidence is.

How does time support the concept of creationism?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152121 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has NEVER seen this myth of yours.
Science has never seen new DNA
Every example has lost DNA NEVER added any.
Lenski experiment, New DNA.

Nylonaise, New DNA.

Any mutation that occurs, by definition New DNA. You have about 150 mutations yourself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152123 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The existence of Time.
You remember Time by all science accounts it can't exist. You do have a short memory. That brings us to another scientific theory, that memory and dick length go hand in hand.

Being brilliant is no great feat if you respect nothing. "---Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152124 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has NEVER seen this myth of yours.
Science has never seen new DNA
Every example has lost DNA NEVER added any.

You are uninformed/misinformed.

Where do you creotards get this nonsense?

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude.- Goethe

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#152125 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Lenski experiment, New DNA.
Nylonaise, New DNA.
Any mutation that occurs, by definition New DNA. You have about 150 mutations yourself.
He has the stupid gene, they only get more stupid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152126 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact
Micro evolution is turning on or off existing genes.

False. Look up the word "mutation".

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text> Science has never observed a new species with more DNA the its predecessor.

False.

In fact an accidental doubling of genetic material (copy error mutation) has occurred a number of times in the genetic record.

Did you flunk out of 6th grade science?




Mugwump

United States

#152127 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact
Micro evolution is turning on or off existing genes.
Science has never observed a new species with more DNA the its predecessor. This is fact no myth like your believes.
Yet you ignore duplication followed by further mutation.

Why are you so dishonest, or more importantly why does your religion require you to have to lie to support it -shitty religion don't you think?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#152129 Sep 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
Lets actually show some intellectual honesty shall we?
Lets say the test was done - and shows an age of 30k years (within the tolerance of C14 dating)
In this hypothetical result, would you admit that YOUR religion that is based on a 6K old earth has been demolished by the test ?
If not why not?
Then it would be well within the tolerance of Biblical accuracy wouldn't it? And your world would collapse all around you wouldn't it?

Being so far outside your 65 million years as to make evolution a joke. Question: What is closer to 30,000? 6,000 (off by a mere 24,000) or 65,000,000 (off by whopping 64,970,000)?(Hint - it isn't the number with 8 figures.
Mugwump wrote:
If so , then how come the other evidence for an old earth , and your lack of evidence for a young earth (as shown by your refusal to present it, HINT : saying you have it doesn't count) is not enough for you to question your position ?
You mean, this "lack" of evidence of a young earth?:

YOUNG AGE INDICATORS: Spiral galaxies young and not yet “wound up”; Type III Supernova remnants “missing”; Comets (Jupiter Family) maximum lifespan 10,000 years; Moon orbit recession rate limits Earth’s maximum age; Saturn ring / moon system upper age limit 10 million years; Absence of Pop. III stars refute BB theory; Discovery of blue stars in Milky Way Galaxy refutes old age; Faint Young Sun Paradox; Polonium-halos in granite rock; C14 in “ancient” samples; Youthful age of cavern speleothems (Carlsbad, Sequoyah); Natural gas seepage rate; The Dead Sea and it’s salt clock max 13,000 years old; Net sodium increase/Ocean salt clock; Amount/depth of ocean floor sediments; Manganese sea nodule size, growth rate, and depth; Rate of diminishing earth geo-magnetic field strength; Atmospheric helium buildup rate; World population growth rates; The world’s oldest living thing; Oldest historical records 5,000 years; Biblical genealogy of the patriarchs; Mitochondrial Eve 6,000 years ago; Insufficient time/generations to account for 60 million (98%) mutations selected makes human-chimp evolution impossible; Tree ring dating upper limits supports young earth; Missing accumulation of fulgurites given “long-age” evolutionary timescale; Dino soft tissue.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#152130 Sep 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you ignore duplication followed by further mutation.
Why are you so dishonest, or more importantly why does your religion require you to have to lie to support it -shitty religion don't you think?
Mutation by duplication doesn't create any new information. You got nothing. Your ideology is baseless.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#152131 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, not good enough.

You clearly don't know what scientific evidence is.

How does time support the concept of creationism?
Time had to be created.

Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can change with out time
Nothing can happen without time

Time cannot pop into existence with out time so you can't have time but we do have time. Time had to be created.
Mugwump

United States

#152132 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it would be well within the tolerance of Biblical accuracy wouldn't it? And your world would collapse all around you wouldn't it?
Being so far outside your 65 million years as to make evolution a joke. Question: What is closer to 30,000? 6,000 (off by a mere 24,000) or 65,000,000 (off by whopping 64,970,000)?(Hint - it isn't the number with 8 figures.
<quoted text>
You mean, this "lack" of evidence of a young earth?:
YOUNG AGE INDICATORS: Spiral galaxies young and not yet “wound up”; Type III Supernova remnants “missing”; Comets (Jupiter Family) maximum lifespan 10,000 years; Moon orbit recession rate limits Earth’s maximum age; Saturn ring / moon system upper age limit 10 million years; Absence of Pop. III stars refute BB theory; Discovery of blue stars in Milky Way Galaxy refutes old age; Faint Young Sun Paradox; Polonium-halos in granite rock; C14 in “ancient” samples; Youthful age of cavern speleothems (Carlsbad, Sequoyah); Natural gas seepage rate; The Dead Sea and it’s salt clock max 13,000 years old; Net sodium increase/Ocean salt clock; Amount/depth of ocean floor sediments; Manganese sea nodule size, growth rate, and depth; Rate of diminishing earth geo-magnetic field strength; Atmospheric helium buildup rate; World population growth rates; The world’s oldest living thing; Oldest historical records 5,000 years; Biblical genealogy of the patriarchs; Mitochondrial Eve 6,000 years ago; Insufficient time/generations to account for 60 million (98%) mutations selected makes human-chimp evolution impossible; Tree ring dating upper limits supports young earth; Missing accumulation of fulgurites given “long-age” evolutionary timescale; Dino soft tissue.
All discussed previously and therefore ignored by yourself.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#152133 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Lenski experiment, New DNA.

Nylonaise, New DNA.

Any mutation that occurs, by definition New DNA. You have about 150 mutations yourself.
Sorry lets see as you put it....
Not good enough.
The DNA is mutated existing DNA.

Burning off your arm is not creating a new species or no new DNA that if cloned would create a one armed man

Adding new DNA as evolution must do via its theory has never been observed or proven. All science has seen is ruined DNA "mutated existing DNA"

Another thing Universe mean all that is know. Or postulated. Because you and many others miss use this word and believe mutated "ruined" existing DNA is how everything came into being only means that there is a large group of people that are wrong.

Numbers don't make it right.
Mugwump

United States

#152134 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation by duplication doesn't create any new information. You got nothing. Your ideology is baseless.
duplication FOLLOWED BY FURTHER MUTATION

How is this not new 'information'?

Of course you missed the last bit out and concentrated on the duplication.

You are too absurd to have a discussion with

(to use your tactic when faced with awkward questions - how is that falsification of ID coming along, or support of your statement that fossils are all out of order).'

Though in my case am on way out, not avoiding questions that show me to be a BSer

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152135 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it would be well within the tolerance of Biblical accuracy wouldn't it?

No. The universe was created in 4004 B.C. October, I believe.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> And your world would collapse all around you wouldn't it?

All of science would collapse. we would have no justifiable reason for believing anything.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Being so far outside your 65 million years as to make evolution a joke. Question: What is closer to 30,000? 6,000 (off by a mere 24,000) or 65,000,000 (off by whopping 64,970,000)?(Hint - it isn't the number with 8 figures.

and it is not going to happen....
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> You mean, this "lack" of evidence of a young earth?:

Yep, you you got zip in that area. Nothing but nonsense.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> YOUNG AGE INDICATORS:[a large amount of poorly written science fiction deleted from this point]

See you got nothing real. Just make-believe that has been dispatched.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152136 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutation by duplication doesn't create any new information. You got nothing. Your ideology is baseless.

Please try to pay attention.

Go back and read what you missed.

See? You are not even responding to the actual issue that was raised. You are responding to what your lack of reading comprehension has driven you to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152137 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Time had to be created.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can change with out time
Nothing can happen without time
Time cannot pop into existence with out time so you can't have time but we do have time. Time had to be created.

Quantum mechanics ....physics.

So no, time did not have to be created.

Time may just be a construct by which we mark the passage of events. Then no events = no time.

You are so uneducated that you don't even know what you are arguing.

"All being is time" - E. Dogen

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152138 Sep 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Time had to be created.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can change with out time
Nothing can happen without time
Time cannot pop into existence with out time so you can't have time but we do have time. Time had to be created.
How do you know? You know nothing of science. You have no idea how time was started, but then neither do I. Having no idea does not allow you to use it as evidence.

Once again, you need to learn what scientific evidence is. You still have nothing.

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) 3 min The Northener 204,923
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Chimney1 43,199
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 18,548
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 3 hr One way or another 2
Questions about first life 14 hr FallenGeologist 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 15 hr It aint necessari... 914
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 151,481
More from around the web