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

#96234 Jul 17, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The record does, in fact, support that. What record are you looking at?

Probably his Puff Daddy records.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96235 Jul 17, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the laugh of the day! It's just all bullshit and fundie propaganda.
Urbie's next move? "It doesn't matter."

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96236 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no facts or evidence. All you ever do is heckle from the side lines and act like a fool.
Oh here we go! Whenever Urbie gets cornered, everyone is a heckler. Or never contributes anything. Or some other crapola. Anything but back up his claims. What a jerk.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#96237 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So prove it big shot. Your claim is just pure speculation based on the theory and has no basis in fact.

You are confused. First of all the theory is based on the facts,.... NOT the other way around. Second, the fossil record is known to scratch the surface, but proof of evolution is found by many fields, not just archeology,and anthropology and biology, and genetics and chemistry and botany and medicine and...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> First, all you have is the fossil record which even if extinct in total is still insignificant in comparison to the number of species living today.

Simply false.

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#96238 Jul 17, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume you're referring to the Theory of Evolution. This has nothing to due with ToE directly. This has to do with mathematics. You remember math don't you, Mr CPA? Statistics? Probabilities? Remember?
<quoted text>
I asked you before where you're getting your numbers from. So far you've refused to provide an answer. So I'm left to assume your still pulling things out of your ass. Prove me wrong, if you can.
Oh and by the way:
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/M...
But I suppose Cornell University is in on the great Darwinist Conspiracy.
Wait! It's posted in the Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics website. Imagine that!
Total dodge. What a putz.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96239 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Total dodge. What a putz.
Where are you getting your numbers, John Boy? Come on, speak up! Spit it out!

Talk about being a putz! The dictionary probably has your picture beside the word.

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#96240 Jul 17, 2012
This Darwinist emphasis on extinctions is rather strange because because it doesn't say anything about how all the species arose in the first place. Extinctions offers no mechanism for evolution. It is just another example of how vacuous words used in the ideological indoctrinatin process. The common claim that 95 - 99 percent of all species have become extinct is not supported by the evidence. It's only support and the only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, then most if not all species would have to have gone extinct as new ones evolve. Therefore, for every given species, there must have been inumerable species preceeding them. But this is just another example of the conclusion coming before the evidence. Actually, this places a burden on evolutionists because you would expect numerous transitional fossils but there isn't even one clear-cut unambiguous series found yet.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96241 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This Darwinist emphasis on extinctions is rather strange because because it doesn't say anything about how all the species arose in the first place. Extinctions offers no mechanism for evolution. It is just another example of how vacuous words used in the ideological indoctrinatin process. The common claim that 95 - 99 percent of all species have become extinct is not supported by the evidence. It's only support and the only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, then most if not all species would have to have gone extinct as new ones evolve. Therefore, for every given species, there must have been inumerable species preceeding them. But this is just another example of the conclusion coming before the evidence. Actually, this places a burden on evolutionists because you would expect numerous transitional fossils but there isn't even one clear-cut unambiguous series found yet.
I guess out and out lying is one way to respond.

Where did you get your numbers, Urbie?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#96242 Jul 17, 2012
Refutation
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This Darwinist emphasis on extinctions is rather strange because because it doesn't say anything about how all the species arose in the first place. Extinctions offers no mechanism for evolution.

Because that is not the subject of what we are currently talking about which is the massive body of evidence AGAINST creationism. So this works out to be just another dodge by you.

Urban Cowboy wrote:
It is just another example of how vacuous words used in the ideological indoctrinatin process. The common claim that 95 - 99 percent of all species have become extinct is not supported by the evidence.

Actually that is a scientific estimate based on what we have found so far, our rate of identifying new species and the expected fossilization rate based on what we know of the fossil record. It is a common claim as it IS supported by the evidence and cannot be wished away.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It's only support and the only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias.

We call it the scientific method, but whatever.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For evolution to be true, then most if not all species would have to have gone extinct as new ones evolve.

Exactly.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Therefore, for every given species, there must have been inumerable species preceeding them.

Exactly
Urban Cowboy wrote:
But this is just another example of the conclusion coming before the evidence.


False as shown above.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Actually, this places a burden on evolutionists because you would expect numerous transitional fossils but there isn't even one clear-cut unambiguous series found yet.

The vast majority of fossils are transitional, as would be expected by the fossil record.

your refusal to examine the evidence objectively in no way changes what the evidence actually says.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96243 Jul 17, 2012

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96244 Jul 17, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Because that is not the subject of what we are currently talking about which is the massive body of evidence AGAINST creationism. So this works out to be just another dodge by you.
Precisely.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#96245 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This Darwinist emphasis on extinctions is rather strange because because it doesn't say anything about how all the species arose in the first place. Extinctions offers no mechanism for evolution. It is just another example of how vacuous words used in the ideological indoctrinatin process. The common claim that 95 - 99 percent of all species have become extinct is not supported by the evidence. It's only support and the only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, then most if not all species would have to have gone extinct as new ones evolve. Therefore, for every given species, there must have been inumerable species preceeding them. But this is just another example of the conclusion coming before the evidence. Actually, this places a burden on evolutionists because you would expect numerous transitional fossils but there isn't even one clear-cut unambiguous series found yet.
1: How do you determine where the nests in the nested hierarchies end?
2: How do you determine that "fur traders" best explains koalas only appearing on Australia?
3: Is 200mph wind resistance a required quality of roofing products in the majority of states, and thus a worthwhile base level of durability for photovoltaics?
Mugwump

Northampton, UK

#96246 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Too". No, you just want to save face and continue to argue a losing battle even though you already lost that one. It is clear you are unwilling to be honest. So I ignore you.
Hmmm - lets just go through the timeline of this argument that I have lost shall we Mr Cowboy?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Although (Carolus) Linneus was a Biblical-creationist who sought to show the great diversity of creation, ad although he devised his system over 100 years before Darwin's Origin of Species, his systm remains as the basis of our classification system today".
-Biology, 2d Edition
<Mugwump> - hmm interesting - but not surprising as a lot of great men believed in the creation account - doesn't mean the classification system was based on Creation Science - I know lets ask UC - he will be able to offer a considered reply
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
An example of a useful scientific methodology devised by someone who BELIVED in biblical creation - rather than the methodology being BASED on biblical creation
Not sure what your point is - its an obvious distinction
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to explain the "obvious"? He was basing the whole thing on creation! This just goes to show how far you're willing to go to deny the obvious. Unbelievable!
<Mugwump> - What now Matey !!! he based his whole system on creation - do tell .... b@"gger - someone else has raised a good point
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Carl Linnaeus wanted to label you an ape but feared retaliation from the church. Like you, the church has no interest in reality, only doctrine.
"Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis."
-- Carl Linneaus, Letters, 1747
-- http://linnaeus.c18.net/Letters/display_txt.p...
But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of natural history. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
<UC> Bugger - someone else has caught me out - time to change the subject - DAMM heres Mugwump again
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry - you are saying that Linnaeus based his classification system on the creation account - want to provide support for this.
The fact he believed in creationism doesn't mean he couldn't make scientific contributions - but you haven't shown creationism underpinned his contribution
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of nature by man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine order of God's creation, and it was the naturalists task to construct a 'natural Classification' that would reveal this order in the universe."
-Carollus Linnaeus, The "Father of Taxonomy"
<Mugwump> - Ok - still doesnt mean he based his science on Creationism
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Just moving back temporarily to the subject of evolution (sit on the fence somewhat on green technologies - believe we need to develop them but suffers from the early adopter issue).......
Have you got any reasons you can put forward as to why you insist Linnaeus's classification system was BASED on creationism.
This comes back to what benefit/predication has come from creation science
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy said it was! What else could it be based on? It was 100 years before Darwin. Give it up - you lost this one.
Mugwump

Northampton, UK

#96247 Jul 17, 2012
Is the above a fair appraisal of your winning argument ?

This is the problem isn't it UC - when pushed you ignore posts
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Too". No, you just want to save face and continue to argue a losing battle even though you already lost that one. It is clear you are unwilling to be honest. So I ignore you.
and insist you have won - refusing to back up your initial claim - this is exactly the tactic you used when I pushed you on your 'Population Statistics prove a YEC' standpoint - again refusing to even reference the 'standard' formula used - just insisting its based on Real Data - wrong of course but no point going over that one again.

Its also the tactic you use for

How to account for 700K x decay rate not frying the earth (courtesy of Chimmney - I think)

The double standards you apply to Creation Science and real Science (Me)

How Koalas got to Oz (Me + Others)- OH I FORGOT - That wasnt important once you got called on it

Useful predictions / knowledge gained through YEC (bloody everyone)

Am I missing anything

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96248 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Common designer.
Without evidence of the designer, assuming common designer is a logical failure. You are adding an unsupported process without any supporting evidence. Care to try again?

Plus, claiming God is all powerful and then using the evidence of common ancestry says either God is lazy or God is less than all-powerful. Which is it?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96249 Jul 17, 2012
vgirl1234 wrote:
They should teach it but they should also be careful on how they teach it because it may affect some people's beliefs. You don't want to have a riligious war in the classroom ya know?
As long as it is taught as science, any trampling on someones religious beliefs shouldn't be an issue.

Now if a student wants to instigate a fight over it, there are other methods of handling it without trampling on their beliefs. But the students should realize that the claims many beliefs make in the name of their relgion cannot hold up scientifically and pussy-footing around the subject does a disservice to the subject. So any bruising will mostly be self-inflicted.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96250 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The two concepts are unrelated.
Wow, just plain Wow! Such a wild rationalization. God sucks as a designer and UC can't possibly admit it. It's not science that shakes the foundations of UC's belief, it's the stranglehold UC has on his beliefs that will destroy them.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#96251 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no facts or evidence. All you ever do is heckle from the side lines and act like a fool.
The facts and evidence have been presented over and over and over and over and over.... Why am I going to waste may time repeating what has already been repeated ad nauseum? You and your ilk deserve only derision, ridicule and scorn.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96252 Jul 17, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>The facts and evidence have been presented over and over and over and over and over.... Why am I going to waste may time repeating what has already been repeated ad nauseum? You and your ilk deserve only derision, ridicule and scorn.
And heckling.

:-)

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque, NM

#96253 Jul 17, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This Darwinist emphasis on extinctions is rather strange because because it doesn't say anything about how all the species arose in the first place. Extinctions offers no mechanism for evolution. It is just another example of how vacuous words used in the ideological indoctrinatin process. The common claim that 95 - 99 percent of all species have become extinct is not supported by the evidence. It's only support and the only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, then most if not all species would have to have gone extinct as new ones evolve. Therefore, for every given species, there must have been inumerable species preceeding them. But this is just another example of the conclusion coming before the evidence. Actually, this places a burden on evolutionists because you would expect numerous transitional fossils but there isn't even one clear-cut unambiguous series found yet.
We can say that humans and chimps share a common ancestor with a high degree of certainty but you will pounce on that infinitesimal grey area and claim it's proof positive you are not completely off your rocker.

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.

Biology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Study Explains One Reason Hair Can Turn Gray May 21 David 8
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Apr '18 North Mountain 223,358
News Megan Funnell suffers from allergies all year l... (May '09) Apr '18 The nose knows 2
Hydrogen bonds Mar '18 Aricher 1
Are female muscles stronger than male muscles? (Feb '08) Mar '18 markiee 126
News Biology is More than the Body Feb '18 humanspirit 1
Mitosis Feb '18 Jennifer 1