Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178618 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.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#100261 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So are you saying that Jesus condemded the practice of adapting children?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#100262 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing it wrong. Maybe it would help if we started from the beginning again. Supply reasonable historical world population data and we'll go from. Historical means "from history".
"Historical" world populations are *estimated* even to this day. I have provided scholarly estimates of world population several times, most recently on the previous page on this thread.

NONE of which are purely exponential nor purely linear in growth rate, and NONE of which agree with your math.
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100263 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing it wrong. Maybe it would help if we started from the beginning again. Supply reasonable historical world population data and we'll go from. Historical means "from history".
Nope, we have been through 2 weeks of your prevarications when we started this, I am happy with the data - although not sure why you are as gives 4m population some 6k years before you claim the earth has existed.

So explain where I was going wrong in changing ONE variable in your formula, namely the number of generations from

15 (358/25) gives the observed figure of 27m from standing start of 6 in 358 years
54 (1358/25) gives .. 116,299,474,006,080,000,000,00 0,000 from standing start in 1358 years

You insist I am 'doing it wrong' now explain why - no more dodging, no more getting all pissy , no changing the subject - just explain why I am doing your exponential growth formula an injustice.

Seem fair ?

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#100264 Aug 20, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Historical" world populations are *estimated* even to this day. I have provided scholarly estimates of world population several times, most recently on the previous page on this thread.
NONE of which are purely exponential nor purely linear in growth rate, and NONE of which agree with your math.
Historical Kong. Do you know what historical means?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#100265 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical Kong. Do you know what historical means?
Yes.

But there are NO "historical" world population figures. Only ESTIMATES of world population figures based upon the combined census findings of developed countries that PERFORMED such a census.

Even today (2012) there is no hard and fast -- EXACT number of humans living on the planet. Many parts of the world do not keep population statistics. Those that *DO* attempt to have an actual head-count are chasing an impossible statistic: Once the numbers are compiled, new people are born, some have immigrated in, some have died or moved away.

Q: WHO took the census in the Americas prior to the Noachian Flood? After the Flood? How many were here before Columbus landed?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#100266 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not you; you've already established that you're a fool. This is impossible discussing this with people who have no clue.
I have had the same feeling many times on this forum. Yet one keeps trying, driven by some sort of futile idealism that the truth will win through in the end. But I am afraid that anyone who can defend YEC in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is simply a lost cause.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#100267 Aug 20, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
But there are NO "historical" world population figures. Only ESTIMATES of world population figures based upon the combined census findings of developed countries that PERFORMED such a census.
Even today (2012) there is no hard and fast -- EXACT number of humans living on the planet. Many parts of the world do not keep population statistics. Those that *DO* attempt to have an actual head-count are chasing an impossible statistic: Once the numbers are compiled, new people are born, some have immigrated in, some have died or moved away.
Q: WHO took the census in the Americas prior to the Noachian Flood? After the Flood? How many were here before Columbus landed?
There are reasonable estimates of world population for historical times. World history includes Ancient, Early Modern, and Contemporary. This is what I mean by historical world population data. Data for these periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_History#An...
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100268 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are reasonable estimates of world population for historical times. World history includes Ancient, Early Modern, and Contemporary. This is what I mean by historical world population data. Data for these periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_History#An...
So you ready to point out where I went wrong with your exponential population forumula yet?

Don't worry, sure I can keep up with the maths, and if I struggle I can run the complicated stuff past Jimbo

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#100269 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing it wrong. Maybe it would help if we started from the beginning again. Supply reasonable historical world population data and we'll go from. Historical means "from history".
"from history" means more than plugging in supposed numbers and making a projection from those numbers. History includes events, conditions, cultural and environmental changes, wars, deseases, etc.

"from history" also must take into account evidence that the supposed starting point for those numbers actually existed. The consesnsus of all the earth sciences tells us that there never was a world wide flood. So, from the get-go, all the numbers you use refer only to themselves, and have nothing to do with "from history".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100270 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are doing it wrong. Maybe it would help if we started from the beginning again. Supply reasonable historical world population data and we'll go from. Historical means "from history".

There is no globe census data going back very far. Beyond that we have solid estimates based on archeology, paleontology, i.e. human settlements and remains. That set of data goes back about 2 million years. The data set we were working off goes back 12k years:

http://tinyurl.com/cys5bd3

Which show a population of 50,000,000 in 10,000 bce.

Further there is no evidence of a flood.

Do the math and show your work.

You are screwed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100271 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you chickened out regarding Dogen's comment. Go figure.

Are you always this dishonest or just when you are online?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100272 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical Kong. Do you know what historical means?

2 million in 2 million BCE
10 million 10 thousand years ago.
7+ billion now.

Work your magic. That is all we are asking.
No more dodging and no more insulting others for pointing out the obvious flaws in your method. Give it a shot, sucker.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100273 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are reasonable estimates of world population for historical times. World history includes Ancient, Early Modern, and Contemporary. This is what I mean by historical world population data. Data for these periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_History#An...

So you accept 2 million people 2 million years ago and 10 million people 12k years ago?

We are making progress.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100274 Aug 20, 2012
How to calculate exponential human growth


1

Multiply the periodic rate times the number of periods of time that pass and call the result "X." For example, if the population in which you are interested grows at 2 percent per year, and you want to calculate what the population, which in this example is 100,000 people, will be in 10 years, you would multiply 0.02 (the decimal form of 2 percent) times 10 (the number of years) to get 0.2 (this is "X").
2

Raise "e" (the base of the natural logarithms) to the Xth power. The constant "e" equals approximately 2.71828. In this example, you would raise "e" to the 0.2 power to get 1.221402594.
3

Multiply the original size of the population by the the result from Step 2 to calculate what the population will be in the specified time period if population grows exponentially. Finishing the example, if the original population size was 100,000, you would multiply 100,000 by 1.221402594 to find that in 10 years the population would be 122,140.

Read more: How to Calculate Exponential Population Growth | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6200533_calculate-exp...


From Ehow.
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100275 Aug 20, 2012
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Since: Aug 07

Murrells Inlet, SC

#100276 Aug 20, 2012
There is no point in responding to Mugwump or Dogen's nonsense anymore. They are both totally off their rocker and totally deranged...all for the sake of their beloved Darwin idol.

And LG has also dissapointed by blatantly reneging on his promises.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#100277 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
There is no point in responding to Mugwump or Dogen's nonsense anymore. They are both totally off their rocker and totally deranged...all for the sake of their beloved Darwin idol.
And LG has also dissapointed by blatantly reneging on his promises.
You are the one asserting that an imaginary man in the sky made everything with no evidence to support it, so it is you with the delusion. They have evidence that was used to discover what they are asserting, that's just smart.

Since: Aug 07

Murrells Inlet, SC

#100278 Aug 20, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"from history" means more than plugging in supposed numbers and making a projection from those numbers. History includes events, conditions, cultural and environmental changes, wars, deseases, etc.
"from history" also must take into account evidence that the supposed starting point for those numbers actually existed. The consesnsus of all the earth sciences tells us that there never was a world wide flood. So, from the get-go, all the numbers you use refer only to themselves, and have nothing to do with "from history".
I already knew you didn't believe in the Flood. That is why I have been asking you all along to supply your own reasonable data. What could be more fair than that?
Mugwump

Swansea, UK

#100279 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
There is no point in responding to Mugwump or Dogen's nonsense anymore. They are both totally off their rocker and totally deranged...all for the sake of their beloved Darwin idol.
And LG has also dissapointed by blatantly reneging on his promises.
So to clarify, after asking about 4 times to justify your population formula against real world figures - you are ducking out as you can't.

Mugwump takes queen
UC - craps on chess board

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#100280 Aug 20, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already knew you didn't believe in the Flood. That is why I have been asking you all along to supply your own reasonable data. What could be more fair than that?
You have been given highly detailed answers on this already, but I will try to get it into your thick head one more time. Population growth fluctuates based on many factors, to the point of making even the best census inaccurate, and which there are very few in the past. But the growth is not, never was, and never will be a constant rate, such as what you are asserting. The reason we see an increase in population growth today is because of modern science making us live longer, technology protecting us from the elements, and being the most peaceful time in all known history.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 1 hr Pokay 6,299
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 19,074
News Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 5 hr Earthling-1 30
News eBay SVP Alan Lee Marks Sells 17,881 Shares 5 hr Philip Cohen 1
what the hell is 973 eht namuh 973?! (Nov '14) 13 hr 9p99p99p9 4
News Ruben Navarrette: Immigration brings predictabl... 14 hr ronnie 1
How can I recover deleted photos & videos from ... (Jul '13) 16 hr Cpqtippee 13
More from around the web