Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162945 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I am way ahead of you. Assumptions lead to hypothesis, which lead to theories which do what?

No. Data leads to hypothesis which lead to.....

[QUOTE who="HTN640509-040147 "]<quoted text> That would be communicate (tell and provide evidence) of what they are about. You see a theory communicates what the assumptions that lead to the hypothesis that lead to the theory itself is all about and shows what the evidence and studying has resulted in.

No. Please do some reading on the scientific method. You will not find any assumptions listed except for the standard assumptions all of science must make.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162946 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not put the link in the post, you did not use quotation marks.
You retard fundies think you don't have to be ethical or even follow the law. It just does not apply to you.
Oh so you are a spell/grammar person and tries to use that to your advantage when pressed up against a wall. I see now. The you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're". You have made that same mistake many times but I did not feel the obsession or need to point it out.

Still awaiting your answer on;

Please share your experimental ideas and beliefs on God as well as do share your facts and observations you claim on RNA in first life. Do remember hypothesis and theory are not facts.
So is your God a fact or not a fact? Is your God real or not real? Do you believe in your God by evidence or faith? What has your God done for you that has changed your life that science has not done?

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162947 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have any an made no claim to such.
Oh I see again when you said "They are in different spheres in my life. Knowledge of God (which most don't seem to have) is experiential."
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>I have made no claim to RNA World hypothesis. It is only one possibility.
and when you said "Acknowledgement of the RNA World hypothesis is based on facts assembled into a reasonable explanation of what is actually observed (that is a bit redundant as my explanation includes a simple definition of hypothesis). I do not consider RNA World to be (have been) a fact. It is one possible explanation" you were talking about everyone else again hypothesis. It is only one possibility.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Quote-mine but still correct. What is your issue. I acknowledge RNA World to be a hypothesis based on the facts and I do not claim that the hypothesis itself is a fact.
Do you have a reading comprehension disorder?
By all means lets not quote mine,. here is the entire comment that does exactly what I said of one sentence you claim fact in the other sentence you claim not fact. "They are in different spheres in my life. Knowledge of God (which most don't seem to have) is experiential. Acknowledgement of the RNA World hypothesis is based on facts assembled into a reasonable explanation of what is actually observed (that is a bit redundant as my explanation includes a simple definition of hypothesis). I do not consider RNA World to be (have been) a fact. It is one possible explanation.""
You are not getting anywhere by being dishonest.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162948 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Please do some reading on the scientific method. You will not find any assumptions listed except for the standard assumptions all of science must make.
Assumptions lead to hypothesis, hypothesis lead to theories. If you have ever studied science this you would know this. A scientist must first assume something is correct before he decides to study it, then try to have it made a hypothesis with his findings, then try to have it accepted as a theory with evidence and observance.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162949 Jan 24, 2014
Why is it so many of your post to supply an answer start with either "No" or "I'? Always negative and or about you self.

What I understand is there are so many like you that believe what you think is right until someone shows you are wrong. Then you blame it on a misunderstanding or "you are just wrong" ploy instead of just admitting you are learning as you go. The shame is not in not knowing and learning, the shame is in thinking you know and denying that you didn't know.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#162950 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense and science tells you that all populations overtime with evolution started in small populations (you know mutations only acquiring in few) unless you content that populations of species just popped into existence in large numbers all at once? Your call maam.
You are wrong , I'm not a woman and populations start off large.
Double dumbass.
Mutations start off small , but evolution is species wide.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162951 Jan 24, 2014
Well Dogen I have to go. I will say this has been interesting getting thoughts from others. I commend you on the choice of your name for you are always "Dogen" questions and facts as well as "Dogen" giving answers that are not on a grade school level. Until later.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#162952 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Assumptions lead to hypothesis, hypothesis lead to theories. If you have ever studied science this you would know this. A scientist must first assume something is correct before he decides to study it, then try to have it made a hypothesis with his findings, then try to have it accepted as a theory with evidence and observance.
Assumptions are not a part of science.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162953 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so you are a spell/grammar person and tries to use that to your advantage when pressed up against a wall. I see now. The you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're". You have made that same mistake many times but I did not feel the obsession or need to point it out.
Still awaiting your answer on;
Please share your experimental ideas and beliefs on God as well as do share your facts and observations you claim on RNA in first life. Do remember hypothesis and theory are not facts.
So is your God a fact or not a fact? Is your God real or not real? Do you believe in your God by evidence or faith? What has your God done for you that has changed your life that science has not done?

My statement did not have the word your or you're in it.

I answered your questions. Are you blind as well as stupid. You did not read my post with the level of comprehension that would be expected of a 6th grader and you try to turn it back on me.

Didn't work, did it?

Read, COMPREHEND and only then try to reply.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#162954 Jan 24, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
Others have pointed out the flaws in your car analogy, so I won't belabour the point. Not all analogies work, and perhaps you were having a bad day. I hope you wouldn't normally write an argument containing the phrase "This is beneficial but is a loss... but it is a great benefit".
I'd rather focus on the Lenski experiment. You claim "genetic mutations wrecked the regulation of a control operation so that when the bacteria produces citrate transporter regardless of whether it is in an oxidative state environment or not". This is not the case at all. The citT gene was duplicated, and the duplicate was inserted after a different promoter that encourages transcription in the presence of oxygen. The original gene and its promoter were undamaged. This is the introduction of new genetic information you were asking for.
You state that "loss mean you no longer have something or having less of something. Loss is bad". Here is an example of gene duplication, not loss. We are gaining something.
You try to argue that being able to import citrate as a food source is bad because... why? The bacteria with these mutations are still able to consume glucose, but they can now also consume citrate. Remember, they live in an environment with a little glucose but lots of citrate. Why is it bad for them to eat it?
You are trying very hard to find a way to present this as bad for this bacteria. You're going to struggle though. The bacteria with this mutation were able to dominate those without it - they now comprise 99% of the population. This mutation has been very successful.
What does the Lenski experiment prove?
Lenski himself believed that the "new information" to which you refer was simply deregulation of a pre-existing citrate utilization system.
After 31,500 generations, you have one new "trait".
How many mutations would be required to go from ape to man? MILLIONS
How many generations from ape to man over 8 million years? perhaps 350,000?
How large was the population producing human evolution? Supposedly < 10,000 individuals
How many bacteria did Lenski have? Trillions of trillions.
By the way, bacteria reproduce asexually.... another flaw in your poster child of evolution.
So, after 31,500 generations you have one new "trait".
How do you think this provides evidence that in 350,000 generations you can creat a human from an ape, with a far smaller population?

Gene duplication is another flawed argument. Duplicating of genes cannot explain the intricacies of the genetic code.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#162955 Jan 24, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is not included in the ToE. There are lots of hypothesis, but no actual theory to argue for or against.
Give me a scientifically logical reason why abiogenesis should be excluded from ToE.
[not some regurgitated talking point from talkorigins]

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162956 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I see again when you said "They are in different spheres in my life. Knowledge of God (which most don't seem to have) is experiential."

Is that a question? As a statement it does not actually state anything.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> and when you said "Acknowledgement of the RNA World hypothesis is based on facts assembled into a reasonable explanation of what is actually observed (that is a bit redundant as my explanation includes a simple definition of hypothesis). I do not consider RNA World to be (have been) a fact. It is one possible explanation" you were talking about everyone else again hypothesis. It is only one possibility.

You are rambling and are not making sense at this point. Try to sort out what you are trying to say and remember to write in coherent sentences.

Please.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> By all means lets not quote mine,. here is the entire comment that does exactly what I said of one sentence you claim fact in the other sentence you claim not fact. "

Maybe if you try correct punctuation. Is English your 3rd language?
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> They are in different spheres in my life. Knowledge of God (which most don't seem to have) is experiential. Acknowledgement of the RNA World hypothesis is based on facts assembled into a reasonable explanation of what is actually observed (that is a bit redundant as my explanation includes a simple definition of hypothesis). I do not consider RNA World to be (have been) a fact. It is one possible explanation.""
You are not getting anywhere by being dishonest.

Here you have my statement and a claim that I am being dishonest without anything to substantiate that I am being dishonest. I am not even sure what you don't understand. You seem to be a very confused person.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162957 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
Well Dogen I have to go. I will say this has been interesting getting thoughts from others. I commend you on the choice of your name for you are always "Dogen" questions and facts as well as "Dogen" giving answers that are not on a grade school level. Until later.

? Do you speak English?

You DO know the 'o' in Dogen is long, right?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162958 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Assumptions lead to hypothesis, hypothesis lead to theories.

This is incorrect as I have already noted.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> If you have ever studied science this you would know this.

Why would the study of science make me know something that is not true?
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>A scientist must first assume something is correct before he decides to study it, then try to have it made a hypothesis with his findings, then try to have it accepted as a theory with evidence and observance.

LOL. Not at all. Look up 'Null Hypothesis", "Dr. HTN"

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162959 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
Why is it so many of your post to supply an answer start with either "No" or "I'? Always negative and or about you self.

What is your native language?
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
What I understand is there are so many like you that believe what you think is right until someone shows you are wrong.

This sounds like psychological projection.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
Then you blame it on a misunderstanding or "you are just wrong" ploy instead of just admitting you are learning as you go. The shame is not in not knowing and learning, the shame is in thinking you know and denying that you didn't know.

If anyone else shares your belief I will consider it. But I am not holding my breath.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#162960 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
My statement did not have the word your or you're in it.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your still working out the whole theory, hypothesis, assumption thing, aren't you.
Your should be You're. Now go to bed child. For again you have been made a fool of.

It is hard to leave here with so many just throwing out dull answers with no memory of what they have said prior. Think on this and I will be back in a day or two to see what comic responses you shell out next.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#162961 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Your should be You're. Now go to bed child. For again you have been made a fool of.
It is hard to leave here with so many just throwing out dull answers with no memory of what they have said prior. Think on this and I will be back in a day or two to see what comic responses you shell out next.
Boy you sure do sound familiar to me.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#162962 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Your should be You're. Now go to bed child. For again you have been made a fool of.
It is hard to leave here with so many just throwing out dull answers with no memory of what they have said prior. Think on this and I will be back in a day or two to see what comic responses you shell out next.

You have been clueless and illiterate and I am the fool for a mere typo? Well that figures.

Clue: I make a lot of typos. But I can typically make lucid statements even with them.

Now, what is your first language? It clearly is not English.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#162963 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
Larger populations will not spread a mutation as fast as a smaller population so in turn, using today as an example, the larger the population the less the mutation will spread. A mutation will spread faster in 100,000 population than it will in a 100,000,000 population. Do you agree? Keep in mind the mutation is not in the entire population but in small fraction/one to few of the population. The bigger the population is the less chance the isolated mutation has to be passed on with breeding for there is a bigger breeding population in the larger populations.
Why would a mutation spread faster in a smaller population? Think about how a particular genetic variation "spreads" through a population.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#162964 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not correct. A true evolutionist will include abiogenesis in their TOE for they see life coming to be from no other possible way. Creationist use it as a thorn in the foot of them for like their God there is no evidence what so ever.
Perhaps in one of the religion forums you visit where people holler back and forth without regard to science there might be someone who claims to know of a working abiogenesis theory. But anyway, you clearly don't understand enough about the ToE to begin to say what supporters of that theory think.

The TOE (all caps) is something different, what astrophysicists refer to as the Theory Of Everything.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 51 min Darsey 169,891
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Darsey 95,384
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 4 hr Darsey 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 5 hr Davidjayjordan 100
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 9 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The “cumulative evidence” problem Mon jla2w 30
E equals MC squared Jun 17 Jim Ryan 15