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.

One way or another

United States

#172535 Mar 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was correct. The path of a probe is not affected by the rotation of the planet. The fly-bys were the first stage of investigation. I was wrong: there were fly-bys before the actual landings. Why you think that demonstrates your claims is anyone's guess.
Then it should be obvious, that all you need to do is copy and paste, where science backs you up when you say, the path of a probe is not affected by the rotation of the planet.

Why didn't you do that already?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172536 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
In my post above, I copied and pasted that segment to the board telling you that everything you need to know is in there, but you're going to have to define each word that is used and read some of that before you can come up with an understanding. Yes, it will be a very simple understanding but nonetheless, the defining of the words that you don't know and what is said about them, will make things clear, if you have above an eighth grade reading and comprehension level.

Why do we need to do the work when you are the one who does not understand?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172537 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go. What doesn't this piece tell you?
Sequence homology[edit] As with anatomical structures, homology between protein or DNA sequences is defined in terms of shared ancestry. Two segments of DNA can have shared ancestry because of either a speciation event (orthologs) or a duplication event (paralogs).
http://128.148.32.110/courses/ csci1950-z/reading/Reconciliat ion_Eddy.pdf

You don't get it. He asked hooter to EXPLAIN, not DEFINE.

If you were in on the joke you would understand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172538 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it should be obvious, that all you need to do is copy and paste, where science backs you up when you say, the path of a probe is not affected by the rotation of the planet.
Why didn't you do that already?

Because it should be obvious even without further information. It is very basic science. Grade School stuff.

The ONLY thing that might have an effect on the probe related to rotation would be if the planet has a magnetic field, but it would have to be massive and the effect would be very, very small.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#172539 Mar 31, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get it. He asked hooter to EXPLAIN, not DEFINE.
If you were in on the joke you would understand.
I have repeatedly challenged "the Dude" to articulate what his fixation is with orthology. He has no response. Orthology is a debunked argument, and it puzzles me why you morons keep bringing up the same irrelevant logic...it only underscores the weakness of your religious beliefs.
If either you or the Dude believes that orthology proves evolution, then let's here your logic instead of your incessant trolling.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172540 Mar 31, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have repeatedly challenged "the Dude" to articulate what his fixation is with orthology. He has no response. Orthology is a debunked argument, and it puzzles me why you morons keep bringing up the same irrelevant logic...it only underscores the weakness of your religious beliefs.
If either you or the Dude believes that orthology proves evolution, then let's here your logic instead of your incessant trolling.

Orthology is neither an "argument" nor is it, in any way, "debunked".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_ (biology)#Orthology

Orthology is one of the many evidences of (not proof) of evolution.

Orthology should not exist if creationism is a fact. Unless the creator had limits or wanted to be deceptive.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#172541 Mar 31, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Orthology should not exist if creationism is a fact. Unless the creator had limits or wanted to be deceptive.
Your religious beliefs are irrelevant, Dogen. As you indicated in your above comment. The entirely of "evidence" that you've presented is a RELIANCE on your preconceived notions of God. As usual, you cannot justify the claims of evolution without references to religion.

You ASSUME attributes of a creator.
That is RELIGION.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172542 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it should be obvious, that all you need to do is copy and paste, where science backs you up when you say, the path of a probe is not affected by the rotation of the planet.
Why didn't you do that already?
F=-GMm/r^2 has no component for the rotation of the planet. And it gives accurate predictions of motion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172543 Mar 31, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your religious beliefs are irrelevant, Dogen. As you indicated in your above comment. The entirely of "evidence" that you've presented is a RELIANCE on your preconceived notions of God. As usual, you cannot justify the claims of evolution without references to religion.
You ASSUME attributes of a creator.
That is RELIGION.

No, you have it bass ackward. I acknowledge the nonreliance of the non notions of the non-god.

To elucidate further:

IFF God created all things then God created evolution.

God is not observable so is the variable.
Evolution is observable so is fixed.

Do you confuse reference to religious terms as being religious?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#172544 Mar 31, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have it bass ackward. I acknowledge the nonreliance of the non notions of the non-god.
To elucidate further:
IFF God created all things then God created evolution.
God is not observable so is the variable.
Evolution is observable so is fixed.
Do you confuse reference to religious terms as being religious?
I'm quite sure that HTS confers a religious status of some sort on the choice of condiments used on hamburgers.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#172545 Mar 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was correct. The path of a probe is not affected by the rotation of the planet. The fly-bys were the first stage of investigation. I was wrong: there were fly-bys before the actual landings. Why you think that demonstrates your claims is anyone's guess.

Venus only has a 50% success rate, and of the missions accomplished, probes last very little time within it's atmosphere, because it's highly corrosive and violently turbulent and very hot.
So much for the goddess of love idea, more like the aggressive bitch Venus is.
But we did mercury too. If there's life on Venus, we don't want to meet it. LOL

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172546 Mar 31, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure that HTS confers a religious status of some sort on the choice of condiments used on hamburgers.

I am sure Ketchup is atheistic. I am not sure about mustard. After all, mustard seeds are mentioned in the Bible (in a scientifically incorrect statement).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172547 Mar 31, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> highly corrosive and violently turbulent and very hot.

I know a few women like that.

Actually,...more than a few.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#172548 Mar 31, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have repeatedly challenged "the Dude" to articulate what his fixation is with orthology. He has no response. Orthology is a debunked argument, and it puzzles me why you morons keep bringing up the same irrelevant logic...it only underscores the weakness of your religious beliefs.
If either you or the Dude believes that orthology proves evolution, then let's here your logic instead of your incessant trolling.
You haven't explained orthology nor have you debunked it. It is the weakness of your beliefs that has created the problem. Orthology supports evolution. It is incombent on you to show that it does not. You aren't up to the task based on what I have seen.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#172549 Mar 31, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quite sure that HTS confers a religious status of some sort on the choice of condiments used on hamburgers.
Choice of relish or mayo is a religious choice. The Book of HTS 57; 1-5.
One way or another

United States

#172550 Mar 31, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
F=-GMm/r^2 has no component for the rotation of the planet. And it gives accurate predictions of motion.
You lie, then you lie again and now, once again.

Newtons law does not apply in this case, but either your stupid or you can't admit you made an ignorant statement to start with.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#172551 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie, then you lie again and now, once again.
Newtons law does not apply in this case, but either your stupid or you can't admit you made an ignorant statement to start with.

Got my smile for the day.

Newton does SOOOOO apply in this case.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172552 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie, then you lie again and now, once again.
Newtons law does not apply in this case, but either your stupid or you can't admit you made an ignorant statement to start with.
Looking in the mirror again, are you?

It is Newton's law of gravity. Of course it applies in this case: we are looking at orbital motion and *gravity*. And F=ma also applies. Now, there are *very* small changes from relativistic effects and the possibility of electric or magnetic effects, but those are much, much smaller than the simple formula for gravity.

By the way, what formula do you think applies to centrifugal motion?

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#172553 Mar 31, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie, then you lie again and now, once again.
Newtons law does not apply in this case, but either your stupid or you can't admit you made an ignorant statement to start with.
Stupid just doesn't quite say it, stoopid is reserved especially for you.
Now don't you feel special, oop I mean speshshull.:)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#172554 Mar 31, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You haven't explained orthology nor have you debunked it. It is the weakness of your beliefs that has created the problem. Orthology supports evolution. It is incombent on you to show that it does not. You aren't up to the task based on what I have seen.
It is incumbent upon you, Dan, to explain why orthology supports evolution. You're the one making the claim. Please logically explain why orthology is predicted by evolution and why it is inconsistent with intelligent design, and I will immediately mop the floor with you.

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) 6 min Chimney1 205,287
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 48 min NightSerf 18,674
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 43,360
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 5 hr Reno HOOCK 921
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web