Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#152151 Sep 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Nearly all duplications will be both deleterious and nearly-neutral just like all classes of mutations. Selection will only be able to eliminate the worst ones. The rest will relentlessly accumulate and gradually destroy the genome. Biological observation supports this view.(For example, there aren't any polyploid humans.) There are a few aneuploidy humans but this is a lethal disease. Duplication destroys information.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152152 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem of how to recognize intelligent design is gradually developing. I suppose it's falsification falls along the same lines. I suppose for now it remains a logical conclusion, based on intuitive recognition. But there has been some progress in the last few years which has helped to formulate a theory.

There is no Theory of creationism (aka ID).
There is no evidence for creationism.
All attempts at finding a means of falsification have lead to ACTUAL falsification (the failure to find even 1 example of I.C. when it should be replete throughout life).

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Keep in mind that the founding fathers of science accepted ID, i.e., Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Faraday, and Kelvin. So this is not anything new.

This is a lie. Why do you keep telling this lie when we refute it every time. No scientist who lived before 1967 ever hear of ID. Some were default "creationists" (but even that term did not exist prior to the 1860's). It was default since no one had any idea what science would eventually find.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Recently, however, it has been greatly refined by Behe, with his argument of Irreducible Complexity.

Failed argument of IC.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Then, this argument was further refined into two related arguments, that of Information Theory (Gitt), and Specified Complexity (Dembsky).

Just-so stories that failed to even cursory examination.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Finally, Sanford ...

Why do you keep forgetting that Sanford has the unique place in the history of science as being the only scientist that has been refuted, IN PRINT, before his work was even released!!!!
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Much hard work remains but it is very interesting to see the developments in this area and I believe that a solid working scientific theory will be forth-coming for ID and Design.

Get used to disappointment.-Dread Pirate Roberts.

And I believe that I can fart sugar-plumb fairies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152153 Sep 14, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen I take nothing you say in no serious manner because all you do is thread hop making 20-30 ranting post in a row on each thread. You are really bad in "It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts" thread which is I why I don't even go to that thread. I don't want to read your ranting's. Cheer up though KAB will always keep you company there.

Can you find an example of any post where what I said was not true?

Oh, I expect that if you could do THAT you would have done so.

I posted factual and (if you had actually read it) helpful information to you and answered your question. Normal people would respond to that with the words "thank you".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#152154 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nearly all duplications will be both deleterious and nearly-neutral just like all classes of mutations. Selection will only be able to eliminate the worst ones. The rest will relentlessly accumulate and gradually destroy the genome. Biological observation supports this view.(For example, there aren't any polyploid humans.) There are a few aneuploidy humans but this is a lethal disease. Duplication destroys information.

No. And this has been explained to you more than once.

Thanks for playing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152155 Sep 14, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Give real answers now "we know"
What do you mean? The links for mutation rates in humans has been posted many times. Even you know the difference between chimps and men. It was about 8 million years ago that we shared a common ancestor with chimps. What do else do you need?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#152156 Sep 14, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem of how to recognize intelligent design is gradually developing. I suppose it's falsification falls along the same lines. I suppose for now it remains a logical conclusion, based on intuitive recognition. But there has been some progress in the last few years which has helped to formulate a theory.
Keep in mind that the founding fathers of science accepted ID, i.e., Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Faraday, and Kelvin. So this is not anything new.
Recently, however, it has been greatly refined by Behe, with his argument of Irreducible Complexity.
Then, this argument was further refined into two related arguments, that of Information Theory (Gitt), and Specified Complexity (Dembsky).
Finally, Sanford proposed another diagnosis of design by comprehensive integration of large numbers of components he calls, Integrated Complexity or Unity. Unity being an objective reality. A jigsaw puzzle has unity; a pile of sand does not.
Much hard work remains but it is very interesting to see the developments in this area and I believe that a solid working scientific theory will be forth-coming for ID and Design.
Funniest damn thing I have read all day. Integrated complexity. I guess they have to run with something.

Solid scientific theory for ID forth-coming. Hilarious.

ROFLMMFAO!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152157 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean? The links for mutation rates in humans has been posted many times. Even you know the difference between chimps and men. It was about 8 million years ago that we shared a common ancestor with chimps. What do else do you need?
That is my point. In OVER 8 million years we have ONLY changed genetically 2 percent but have changed in many many species and many many forms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#152158 Sep 14, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
That is my point. In OVER 8 million years we have ONLY changed genetically 2 percent but have changed in many many species and many many forms.
So what is your question?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152159 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is your question?
Look at where we are and how advanced we are look at where the chimp is. Do you think that is only a 2% difference in us and a chimp?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#152160 Sep 14, 2013
Dr. John Sanford on Down - Not Up 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University)

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152161 Sep 14, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you find an example of any post where what I said was not true?
Oh, I expect that if you could do THAT you would have done so.
I posted factual and (if you had actually read it) helpful information to you and answered your question. Normal people would respond to that with the words "thank you".
If you took as much time to read as you do ranting you would have seen I said I don't read your ranting's. Next stupid question!

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152162 Sep 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is your question?
For real Sub. Only a 2 percent difference between us and a chimp! Hellll by now the chimps should be where we were 3 thousand years ago don't you think? They should be building pyramids and all kinds of things. Give them a couple thousand more years and they should be building factories, cars and houses don't ya think?.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#152163 Sep 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So Eve was a clone. Got it.
Did her kids ever wonder why mom and dad didn't have belly buttons?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152164 Sep 14, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Did her kids ever wonder why mom and dad didn't have belly buttons?
If someone is born again do they have two belly buttons?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#152166 Sep 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the ToE "predict" e preservation of soft tissues in 67 million year old fossils?
Yes or no?
ToE does not care whether its possible or not. Ask a chemist. The question does not even apply.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#152167 Sep 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one really thinks long term preservation is possible. If they did, C-14 would be immediately employed. Horner is scared to death that C-14 will result in a young date, and so are you.
Wrong on two counts. If the entire ToE were overturned tomorrow, nobody is going to be scared. We will look for a theory that is consistent with the facts and makes valid predictions. Fear is not even a factor, its an absurd framework to apply to scoentific research.

Secondly, if we had absolute proof of a 5000 year old Trex or even if we found dinosaurs living in the Congo today, that still would not falsify evolution anyway. Any more than coelacanth did....and if you STILL dont understand that the TOE does not put an expiry date on orders of creature, then you STILL dont even understand the theory you arrogantly criticise.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#152168 Sep 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense gained from a life-time of observation of what happens to dead animals. They quickly get consumed and decomposed every time. So if we find some stinking, rotting flesh, common sense tells us it isn't that old. Now you expect me to matter of factly go along with the idea that it's no big deal for an animal to be 65 million years old and still be decomposing? That nuts.
All I am saying is they worked out the half life of DNA and probably have done so for protein as well. There must be repeated chains of collagen peptide since that is how it was confirmed by peer review. Therefore, if we know the number of amino acids for initially, and we know the number of amino acids today, and we have a half life for protein, let's plug in the numbers and see how old it is by that method. Should give a rough approximation at least.(But you already know this will give it a young age so you don't even want to go there do you?)
Again your common sense is a poor guide. Even mammoth flesh preserved in the ice for millennia will START to rot and stink as soon as its exposed the air, microbes, and warmth. Your common sense is of zero vslue in estimating what should happen to preserved and dessicated remains sealed in bone that is further sealed in nonporous sandstone. You have NO idea. Neither do I. So that is where we employ science to find out.

The peptide chains were intact enough to provoke a response from collagen antibodies. Now DNA on one hand is a structurally homogenous molecule. Sequences change but its the same basic structure. Proteins on the other hand are enormously variable in their structures whichnis what makes them good building materials. So I doubt that one protein is going to be as stable as the next nor brrak down at the same rate under the same conditions. And for all we know some peptide chains may be fully stable under certain conditions. To take an extreme, a cryogenically frozen and sealed sample might last forever. So really you have no guidance here from either common sense or previois scientific enquiry.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#152169 Sep 15, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at where we are and how advanced we are look at where the chimp is. Do you think that is only a 2% difference in us and a chimp?
Ask an alien. It would see two creatures virtually identical at the cellular level. Anatomically almost identical compared to thw possible range of life which just on earth includes sea shrimp, bacteria, oak trees, bats, and octopus. By contrast the only difference between us and a chimp is a bit of stretching and squishing ove identical parts.

Chiefly among these is our brain pan which has billowed out to 3x chimp size and is really responsible for all the real sense of difference we have. But its even the same brain design, just our cerebrum is massively expanded and the chimps is already impressive by animal standards.

Yeah 2% covers it easily.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#152170 Sep 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem of how to recognize intelligent design is gradually developing. I suppose it's falsification falls along the same lines. I suppose for now it remains a logical conclusion, based on intuitive recognition. But there has been some progress in the last few years which has helped to formulate a theory.
Keep in mind that the founding fathers of science accepted ID, i.e., Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Faraday, and Kelvin. So this is not anything new.
Recently, however, it has been greatly refined by Behe, with his argument of Irreducible Complexity.
Then, this argument was further refined into two related arguments, that of Information Theory (Gitt), and Specified Complexity (Dembsky).
Finally, Sanford proposed another diagnosis of design by comprehensive integration of large numbers of components he calls, Integrated Complexity or Unity. Unity being an objective reality. A jigsaw puzzle has unity; a pile of sand does not.
Much hard work remains but it is very interesting to see the developments in this area and I believe that a solid working scientific theory will be forth-coming for ID and Design.
Your esteemed collection of retards doing their "science" reminds me immediately of chimps having a tea party.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#152171 Sep 15, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask an alien. It would see two creatures virtually identical at the cellular level. Anatomically almost identical compared to thw possible range of life which just on earth includes sea shrimp, bacteria, oak trees, bats, and octopus. By contrast the only difference between us and a chimp is a bit of stretching and squishing ove identical parts.
Chiefly among these is our brain pan which has billowed out to 3x chimp size and is really responsible for all the real sense of difference we have. But its even the same brain design, just our cerebrum is massively expanded and the chimps is already impressive by animal standards.
Yeah 2% covers it easily.
Walking, legs, arms, heads, brains (including thought, invention, language, design etc etc. I believe 2 percent is not even close. There is no way a chimp has accomplished even near 2 percent of what humans have.

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 One way or another 48,568
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Aura Mytha 216,723
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 42 min marksman11 154,697
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 13 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web