Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103814 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, we can play that way. Then were is the dividing line between modern humans and not modern humans?
Is Orrorin tugenensis a fully modern human?
Ardipithecus ramidus?
Australopithecus afarensis?
Kenyanthropus platyops?
Australopithecus sediba?
Homo habilis?
Homo rudolfensis?
Paranthropus boisei?
Homo erectus?
Homo gautengensis?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo sapiens idaltu?
Homo neanderthalensis?
Where do you want the line drawn? I leave this decision to your wisdom. Which are fully modern humans and which are not?
I predict you will not respond to this post in any reasonable way, if at all.
OK the first one, Orrorin tugenensis, there was only a some fragments of remains found so impossible to determine what it is. But your theory has the answer, right?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103815 Oct 7, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Ah, entropy only exists when and where you say. Hahahahahahaha
It demands more energy to make more bone and muscle mass.

Entropy only fully applies to closed systems. Entropy also exists in open systems, of course, but to gain more mass one only needs to consume more food (an abundant source of energy).

Humans tend to consume more energy than we use (which is why we gain weight).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103816 Oct 7, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Mans food supply is going to hell. Entropy is going to roar soon enough, while disease will run rampant.

You might want to read about entropy before commenting on it so as not to look foolish.

Here is a short basic article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103817 Oct 7, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Primarily from the sun. Also, nuclear fusion in the Earth's core. A little is cosmic radiation. Therefore, the Earth is an open system, so it's entropy can decrease while the net entropy of the universe increases, just like a particular stock can skyrocket during a stock market decline.

The core does not generate nuclear fusion. It does generate radioactivity and heat from pressure.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103818 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, we can play that way. Then were is the dividing line between modern humans and not modern humans?
Is Orrorin tugenensis a fully modern human?
Ardipithecus ramidus?
Australopithecus afarensis?
Kenyanthropus platyops?
Australopithecus sediba?
Homo habilis?
Homo rudolfensis?
Paranthropus boisei?
Homo erectus?
Homo gautengensis?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo sapiens idaltu?
Homo neanderthalensis?
Where do you want the line drawn? I leave this decision to your wisdom. Which are fully modern humans and which are not?
I predict you will not respond to this post in any reasonable way, if at all.
Next on the list is:

"The fossils of Ardipithecus have not yet been studied by researchers beyond the original (2009) group of describers, and the paleobiology and relationships of these creatures are the subject of controversy.[16][17] Skeptics claim that many of the allegedly hominin-like features seen in the Ardipithecus material are found elsewhere among living and fossil primates, and that claims about its hominin status and locomotor habits are not adequately supported by the available evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

Man, this is going even better than I thought! I can't wait to look up the next one!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103819 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like we're almost there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...

That is just a list of genetic disorders. It has nothing to do with entropy.

You do know it takes just as much energy to duplicate DNA correctly as it does to duplicate it incorrectly,.... right?

So, do you actually have anything that shows that entropy is occurring in the genome?

[crickets heard chirping]

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103820 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, we can play that way. Then were is the dividing line between modern humans and not modern humans?
Is Orrorin tugenensis a fully modern human?
Ardipithecus ramidus?
Australopithecus afarensis?
Kenyanthropus platyops?
Australopithecus sediba?
Homo habilis?
Homo rudolfensis?
Paranthropus boisei?
Homo erectus?
Homo gautengensis?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo sapiens idaltu?
Homo neanderthalensis?
Where do you want the line drawn? I leave this decision to your wisdom. Which are fully modern humans and which are not?
I predict you will not respond to this post in any reasonable way, if at all.
Lucy was an ape. Next?

http://creationwiki.org/Australopithecus_afar...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103821 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mercury point was a late night mistake. So I further investigated. Wow! Better than I could have imagined.(Magentic strength present and declining, Blue Hollows forming on young craters, etc.) It certainly is a young universe.

Now what accounts for your mid morning mistake?

magnetic strength is variable for every body in our solar system that has a magnet field. The sun, for one example, is always increasing or decreasing in magnetic field strength. There may even be cycles to these things. Magnetic fields can also rotate and flip.

Blue Hollows are simply a process of active geology which is not unexpected on a 4.5 billion year old planet with a hot active core.

You want to try again?

Better luck next time.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103822 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lucy was an ape. Next?
http://creationwiki.org/Australopithecus_afar...
You are an ape.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103823 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK the first one, Orrorin tugenensis, there was only a some fragments of remains found so impossible to determine what it is. But your theory has the answer, right?

I noticed you did not provide an answer.

Yes, these are all branches on the same tree. They have overlapping morphology and show the lineage of human evolution.

Ask around.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103824 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Next on the list is:
"The fossils of Ardipithecus have not yet been studied by researchers beyond the original (2009) group of describers, and the paleobiology and relationships of these creatures are the subject of controversy.[16][17] Skeptics claim that many of the allegedly hominin-like features seen in the Ardipithecus material are found elsewhere among living and fossil primates, and that claims about its hominin status and locomotor habits are not adequately supported by the available evidence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Man, this is going even better than I thought! I can't wait to look up the next one!

I only gave a partial list for a reason. The earliest forms are the least studied and the least human in characteristics.

This should be a good education for you. You are reading the whole articles, not just the questions, right?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103825 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lucy was an ape. Next?
http://creationwiki.org/Australopithecus_afar...

I have no respect for antiscience creotard religious extremism. Got a real science site?

They are all apes, up to and including Homo Sapiens.

Here is a real link with real references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#103826 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Mendellian genetics. The built-in design of the genome allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility within species or kind. Take every human being alive today and analyze the range of sizes, shapes, and color. But there isn't anybody starting to develop feathers or scales or blowholes.
Are you claiming, then, that "microevolution" is a completely random process?

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103827 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, we can play that way. Then were is the dividing line between modern humans and not modern humans?
Is Orrorin tugenensis a fully modern human?
Ardipithecus ramidus?
Australopithecus afarensis?
Kenyanthropus platyops?
Australopithecus sediba?
Homo habilis?
Homo rudolfensis?
Paranthropus boisei?
Homo erectus?
Homo gautengensis?
Homo heidelbergensis?
Homo sapiens idaltu?
Homo neanderthalensis?
Where do you want the line drawn? I leave this decision to your wisdom. Which are fully modern humans and which are not?
I predict you will not respond to this post in any reasonable way, if at all.
Each one is just as much a joke as the last one. Next up is:

"The Kenyanthropus find is no surprise to the creation model. This flat-faced, small-toothed fossil creature with a brain the size of a chimpanzee was probably some variety of an ape. But, for now, evolutionists have the job of convincing the public otherwise."

http://www.creationdefense.org/60.htm

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103828 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no respect for antiscience creotard religious extremism. Got a real science site?
They are all apes, up to and including Homo Sapiens.
Here is a real link with real references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...
And I have no respect for anti-science evotarded ideological extremism.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#103829 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the same. I'd much rather be in control of my own affairs, even if to a fault, then be totally dependent on some central control for everything.
I agree
Liberals tend to be very arrogant but almost never know what is best for others simply because it's only for there own purpose.
I agree.
The right believes that individual knows best how to run their own life.
Nope. This is where the "right" splits in two.

The religiously conservative right believe in censorship, drug control, sexual control, even, when they had the power, preventing people working on Sundays, and so on.

Only the libertarian right believe in personal freedom.

Unfortunately, you seem to fall into the religiously conservative camp, making you just as bad as the liberals you criticise.(Ahem, I do hope you understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. I am assuming you do.)
Religions could be right or left. There are some religions that look like communinism or socialism
Yes, like Christianity in many cases! Manay of the things Jesus said can easily be interpreted in a socialistic manner.
or even dictatorship but others that are personal and individual and follow a conservative pattern where the individual takes responsibility for himself. For example, Christians, generally answer only to the Lord and then to family so government or church authority is not a factor or very minimal and does not influence his life much at all.
It's not about who THEY answer to that matters. Its about who they expect everyone else to answer to, even those who do not share their beliefs. Just like liberals. As far as I am concerned, you are merely answering to voices in your head, but I won't hold that against you as long as you keep it private!

The only just laws in a free society are secular laws based on the principle of doing no unjustified harm to others or to their property. Adults can do what they like to themselves or each other by consent - none of your business or mine. So long as they accept the consequences of course.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103830 Oct 7, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you claiming, then, that "microevolution" is a completely random process?
In what respect? Once natural selection (not random) acts on the phenome (notice that it can't act at the molecular level!), then proverbial cards are shuffled in the reproductive process, which is based on Mendellian genetics.
LowellGuy

United States

#103831 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The core does not generate nuclear fusion. It does generate radioactivity and heat from pressure.
My bad. Thanks for the correction.

That's how a refutation should be handled, KAB. See how I didn't try to rationalize what I had said, but accepted the correction? That's what you need to learn how to do.
Monkey for evonuts

Tucson, AZ

#103832 Oct 7, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should he have to explain something that science does not claim?
You have been misinformed.
Dont dodge the question. If They claim man is a monkey (in theory)they should be able to come up with an anwser as to how nonliving matter(dust)before monkey evolution,came to exist. Afterall their big like god egos should afford them this simple question.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103833 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Each one is just as much a joke as the last one. Next up is:
"The Kenyanthropus find is no surprise to the creation model. This flat-faced, small-toothed fossil creature with a brain the size of a chimpanzee was probably some variety of an ape. But, for now, evolutionists have the job of convincing the public otherwise."
http://www.creationdefense.org/60.htm

So far you have offered no scientific defense, only creotard crap.

Here is what a real reference shows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus

-----

So, so far they are all ape (or not human). Let me know when you get to the dividing line.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min u196533dm 58,048
Smoant Charon 218W TC Box Mod 4 hr perty 1
News White House Chaos Doesn't Bother the Stock Market 6 hr Real World 7
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 7 hr VetnorsGate 12,800
Lost Vape Esquare DNA60 TC Mod Tue perty 1
How to wipe iphone clean? Tue Seabag 2
Huawei Mate 9 with Leica Dual Camera - 64GB Unl... Tue allisonhu 2
More from around the web