Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160750 Dec 31, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text> If it is what *you* define it to be, then sure, it is a slam dunk. How do you know it is what you say it is? Oh, because you are the infallible token science guy who knows what no one else can know.
No, but the *phenomena* that rocks show does not include the phenomena of consciousness. That is sufficient for me. Not showing it is equivalent to not having it.
When it was announced that Ventor "created artificial life" in lab, I didn't see you correcting that misrepresentation. You just go right along with it.
I don't tend to argue with overblown news reports that differ from the claims of the actual scientists.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160751 Dec 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's pretend you aren't stupendously wrong for a sec - doesn't matter. Then evolution occurred in 6,000 years.
After all, it's EXACTLY what you say happened after the flood.
What evolution?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160752 Dec 31, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>Dang, do you ever read and address what is presented? I said, "I don't disagree with you that it is 'collective properties of smaller phenomena'." Yea sure, it means that it emerges from molecular complexity. But it also comes into existence and then goes out of existence at death if it is emergent. Why can't you admit such a docile fact?
Because it is wrong?

To be emergent means that it is composed of smaller parts that do not show the larger scale phenomenon. For example, no molecule has pressure or temperature, but collections of molecules do. So pressure and temperature are emergent phenomena. Similarly, no neuron has consciousness, but a collection of neurons does, so consciousness is emergent. it is a collective phenomenon, not a singular phenomenon.
You ignored the rest of what you quoted. I asked,'what is wrong with a black box
being described as something we can work with directly?'.
Because we use a language. In that language, the term 'black-box' does not mean what you want that.
You said we don't "look inside" of a box and I asked what you call it when we detect a nucleus within an atom. Nothing from you. Can't you admit you were wrong about something as trivial as this? I have done it so many times over the years here on this board.
We certainly don't call the nucleus a 'black-box' when we are investigating the actual properties of the nucleus. If we are interested in other things, such as the orbiting electrons and if the detailed properties of the nucleus are irrelevant for our studies,*then* we consider the nucleus to be a 'black-box'. That is the usage that is standard in the English language. You are mis-using the term.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160753 Dec 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, it's just common sense that when they make successful predictions based on evolution that they really should ignore it in favour of the invisible Jew wizard.
The reason you have no respect for opposing views and basically act like a nasty jerk all the time is deep down, you know you are wrong. Otherwise, if you knew you were right, and were confidant, there would be no reason to be so nasty to others who don't agree with you. It's a major red flag. But your mind has been corrupted. Mental leprosy. You continue even to the point of self destruction. I see this pattern repeated with many of you here.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160754 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not aware of that. Definitely a strike against Obama in my book.
But then his predecessor was hardly a friend of science.
One problem I do have is that politics can corrupt science. If you have ever followed the Ancel Keys inspired jihad against saturated fat, which is still not supported by the balance of evidence but became official govt policy decades ago, you will know what I mean.
W will probably be remembered as the first president that not only didn't support science, but was outright hostile to science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160755 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most studies I've seen"? I call BS.
Then why is it that there are no successful liberal best selling books or talk shows? There are a ton of conservative books and talk shows but almost no liberal ones. What? Democrats have no interest in reading or talking issues? Why is that?
I have read those conservative books. They are written at the "See Spot run" level and they all pretty much say the same thing. Oddly, your posts read much like them. Angry, low brow and close-minded.

There is nothing wrong with being conservative, but what passes for conservative in the US today isn't. Where are the 21st Century Eisnenhowers and Goldwaters? Replaced by religious zealots, fear mongers, historical revisionists and talking heads.

It is no surprise that red states tend to have lower IQ's and demand the largest servings of the government cheese.
Who Knows

Medina, OH

#160756 Dec 31, 2013
Oogah Boogah wrote:
Just so that I can throw your ignorant comment back at you,.... "... Photons are never at rest."
and
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, rest mass is defined as the square root of the Minkowski length of the energy-momentum 4-vector, i.e. m=sqrt((E/c^2)^2-(p/c)^2). In the case of photons, E=pc, which gives m=0.
What is it with you poly? The comment made was that photons are never at rest. Photons are believed to have a zero rest mass, yes, but that number is not derived from a resting photon. Why would you try to imply that? You said something once about dishonesty being a character flaw.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160757 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I had no idea you could be this stupid! It wasn't the DI doing the survey you idiot!
I reread my post to make sure, but no where do I say the DI did the survey. You also fail to (or is it run from) the fact that the DI report of the poll is erroneous (read lie).

If you have real data to support your position, I would be happy to acknowledge it, but it is obvious you have no solid position because you have to support it with lies.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160758 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>W will probably be remembered as the first president that not only didn't support science, but was outright hostile to science.
How? He supported the space program and ordered the space shuttle be replaced (which it was before Obama pulled the plug). He and Laura always promoted education and especially science and strengthen testing standards. Laura was a teacher and a librarian! What the hell are you retards lying about now?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160759 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the opposite. Democrats are the low information crowd that like to do what they are told. Democrats are generally those that need the government to take care of them and to think for them. They are the ones who can't make it on their own and need help to get along in life. They need mental and physical assistance. They are mentally and physically weaker and so believe that the more able and fit should provide for them.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.

They probably aren't even human. I bet they don't have souls. They aren't even American.

You are given to totally baseless rants aren't you.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160760 Dec 31, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>and
<quoted text>What is it with you poly? The comment made was that photons are never at rest. Photons are believed to have a zero rest mass, yes, but that number is not derived from a resting photon. Why would you try to imply that? You said something once about dishonesty being a character flaw.
I didn't imply that.

Particles that *can* be at rest obey the equation E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 where E is the energy, p is the momentum and m is the rest mass.

Particles (like the photon) that *cannot* be at rest obey the equation E=pc. This corresponds to m=0 in the previous equation, so if we set m=0 for particles that cannot be at rest, the same equation applied to everything. So, m=0 for photons: they have zero 'rest mass'.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160761 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have read those conservative books. They are written at the "See Spot run" level and they all pretty much say the same thing. Oddly, your posts read much like them. Angry, low brow and close-minded.
There is nothing wrong with being conservative, but what passes for conservative in the US today isn't. Where are the 21st Century Eisnenhowers and Goldwaters? Replaced by religious zealots, fear mongers, historical revisionists and talking heads.
It is no surprise that red states tend to have lower IQ's and demand the largest servings of the government cheese.
Don't be surprised that I don't believe a word of that. You are so full of it you must need chest waders just to get around.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160762 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Look [email protected], the link doesn't work AT THE HCD SITE EITHER! The survey is not by the DI you idiot, it's from HCDI, the same one you posted! OMG you are so dumb. And you don't understand percentages either.
"To view detailed results for this poll, please go to: http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776" ;
http://www.hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm...
Wow. You had to post a lie twice. It still hasn't become true. I never said the DI did the poll. What I am saying is that the DI manipulated the poll data to propagate a lie. If ID is such a slam dunk, why is it built on a foundation of lies.

Still never said that the DI created the poll. The first line in the DI propaganda you linked and the two links I provided all indicate that the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research conducted the poll.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160763 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I reread my post to make sure, but no where do I say the DI did the survey. You also fail to (or is it run from) the fact that the DI report of the poll is erroneous (read lie).
If you have real data to support your position, I would be happy to acknowledge it, but it is obvious you have no solid position because you have to support it with lies.
You lying freak. The LINK moron. The LINK. It's not the DI's link that wasn't working. And quite lying about the report. There were several findings, they chose what favored THEM just like you chose what favored YOU. Moron.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160764 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. You had to post a lie twice. It still hasn't become true. I never said the DI did the poll. What I am saying is that the DI manipulated the poll data to propagate a lie. If ID is such a slam dunk, why is it built on a foundation of lies.
Still never said that the DI created the poll. The first line in the DI propaganda you linked and the two links I provided all indicate that the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research conducted the poll.
Answer the damn question weasel, how was Bush hostile to science?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160765 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How? He supported the space program and ordered the space shuttle be replaced (which it was before Obama pulled the plug). He and Laura always promoted education and especially science and strengthen testing standards. Laura was a teacher and a librarian! What the hell are you retards lying about now?
An answer fit with your level of quality. Why is NASA the only example you can come up with. Science is much bigger than just that. What about mentioning manipulation of government research to make it fit with administration policy? Oh, but in your simple little world, that never happened. Right.

Intelligent design, global warming, politicizing science in support of interest groups, altering research results or ignoring them based on belief. It goes on and on. But you will just use your regular angry name calling, straw men and lies in your response.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160766 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be surprised that I don't believe a word of that. You are so full of it you must need chest waders just to get around.
What is wrong with being conservative? You don't agree that Eisenhower and Goldwater were great men? That is surprising.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160767 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. You had to post a lie twice. It still hasn't become true. I never said the DI did the poll. What I am saying is that the DI manipulated the poll data to propagate a lie. If ID is such a slam dunk, why is it built on a foundation of lies.
Still never said that the DI created the poll. The first line in the DI propaganda you linked and the two links I provided all indicate that the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research conducted the poll.
Like an idiot, you blamed the DI (which I think are a bunch of losers by the way) for the non-working link. You said something like (without wasting my time finding and re-reading your moronic post) can't they get any IT people to fix it? It's not there link to fix you incompetent dolt.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160768 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying freak. The LINK moron. The LINK. It's not the DI's link that wasn't working. And quite lying about the report. There were several findings, they chose what favored THEM just like you chose what favored YOU. Moron.
Wow somebody has their panties in a wad.

I did select findings I favored. I found two other sites that reported results opposite of the DI. The two sites were consistent with each other and not the DI report. Now do you bother to explain why they are different? No. Do you try to convince me that I am wrong? No. You go into a knee jerk rant of name calling and anger. Am I surprised at your response? No.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#160769 Dec 31, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes there is, one is born from a thermal source, the other is born from a chemical reaction.
What you don't seem to realize is that most of the photons you see are produced chemically. For example, I am looking at a blue cup right now. The blue photons from that cup are produced when a dye chemical goes from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. It was originally put in that higher energy state by a 'thermal' photon from my light bulb, but the blue photon is not produced 'thermally', but chemically.
The difference is heat, a non thermal born photon carry's only 1/3 the thermal energy of a thermal born photon.
Photons do not 'carry thermal energy'. They carry energy, period. When they interact with matter, they can increase the heat energy *of the matter*, but they also may increase the kinetic energy.
This is the difference between a biophoton and a photon born from the sun, or fire. Of course you will say a photon of the same range is identical, but none of them are equal in range, even bio-luminescence is slightly different. But of the same order.
So the *photons* of equal frequency are the same. But the *spectrum* of photons from the two sources is different. That is agreed upon, but not what you claimed.
Yes photons that are equal are equal, but non thermal photons are much weaker, that's why you can't heat a house with a glow stick but you could power an oven with a halogen lamp..
No, you cannot heat a house from a glow stick because the number of photons emitted is low. The spectrum is also different (different range of frequencies).
This is the difference not anything else, yes it is Velocity, amplitude, wavelength, and frequency that differs nothing more.
Actually, it is frequency and number of photons of each frequency. In other words, the spectrum.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 min Frindly 1,512
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 32,463
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr Science 163,079
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Agents of Corruption 222,271
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Aug 21 Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web