Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104087 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that. Deciet is for people that have nothing else.
Please correct me. As I understand your hypothesis, according to Newton's law of gravitation, a planet's gravity is a function of it's distance from the sun. Planets closer to the sun will have a higher surface gravity, and planets farther way will have a much lower gravity. So, if a planet moves far enough away it's surface gravity will approach zero? I'm not being deceitful, I'm just trying to understand your hypothesis.
Tyler in the Clouds

Southfield, MI

#104088 Oct 8, 2012
I'ma be honest Psychology, I'm not actually sure of your intellect at all. That was just a crude attempt to get you to back up your statements with factual evidence. Or to at least /clarify/ your stance holy fudge I sincerely question whether you yourself know what you are arguing about at this point, between your gross misunderstanding of the second law of motion and physics in general, your inability to be civil, and just... seriously, everything you say is conspiratorial at best and completely and utterly irreconcilable with reality normally.

You are not worth the time to debate with. At all. In the slightest. If you wish to disagree, you are free to do so, but if you honestly want to debate then you will need to prove it to me and to pretty much everyone else around here. That said, I will now cease responding to any and all posts you make, and highly recommend that others do the same. This discussion is no longer even about what it was originally, which was the question of whether or not evolution should be taught at a high school level (which, incidentally, I should like to say I am in favor of--an earlier education of the fundamentals of biology, and also science in general, can only be a boon to our currently lackluster academic performance).

So! In conclusion, please continue talking, but also please do not expect to be heard.
Psychology

United States

#104090 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Are these gas planets? If so, what is more important for gravity - size or mass?
Supposedly, mass, but then according to much in science, gravity is a theory, while schools teach it as a law.
Psychology

United States

#104091 Oct 8, 2012
Tyler in the Clouds wrote:
I'ma be honest Psychology, I'm not actually sure of your intellect at all. That was just a crude attempt to get you to back up your statements with factual evidence. Or to at least /clarify/ your stance holy fudge I sincerely question whether you yourself know what you are arguing about at this point, between your gross misunderstanding of the second law of motion and physics in general, your inability to be civil, and just... seriously, everything you say is conspiratorial at best and completely and utterly irreconcilable with reality normally.
You are not worth the time to debate with. At all. In the slightest. If you wish to disagree, you are free to do so, but if you honestly want to debate then you will need to prove it to me and to pretty much everyone else around here. That said, I will now cease responding to any and all posts you make, and highly recommend that others do the same. This discussion is no longer even about what it was originally, which was the question of whether or not evolution should be taught at a high school level (which, incidentally, I should like to say I am in favor of--an earlier education of the fundamentals of biology, and also science in general, can only be a boon to our currently lackluster academic performance).
So! In conclusion, please continue talking, but also please do not expect to be heard.
I don't expect people of average, deceitful intelligence, to care or understand. Run along sonny.
Psychology

United States

#104092 Oct 9, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Please correct me. As I understand your hypothesis, according to Newton's law of gravitation, a planet's gravity is a function of it's distance from the sun. Planets closer to the sun will have a higher surface gravity, and planets farther way will have a much lower gravity. So, if a planet moves far enough away it's surface gravity will approach zero? I'm not being deceitful, I'm just trying to understand your hypothesis.
According to Keplers 2nd law,--That is, the acceleration of a planet in its orbit around the Sun depends upon the mass of the Sun and the inverse square of the planet's distance from the Sun. As the planet moves further away in its orbit around the Sun, the gravitational force exerted by the Sun on the planet decreases.
Psychology

United States

#104093 Oct 9, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Please correct me. As I understand your hypothesis, according to Newton's law of gravitation, a planet's gravity is a function of it's distance from the sun. Planets closer to the sun will have a higher surface gravity, and planets farther way will have a much lower gravity. So, if a planet moves far enough away it's surface gravity will approach zero? I'm not being deceitful, I'm just trying to understand your hypothesis.
True, when a planet moves far enough away, it's gravity will approach zero.
Mugwump

Woodford Green, UK

#104094 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
True, when a planet moves far enough away, it's gravity will approach zero.
So you are saying that as (say) a comet moves further and further away from the sun in its orbit away from the sun, a man standing on it would 'weigh' less ?

Bring proof moron

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104095 Oct 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Haldane (1957) calculated that it would take 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. This is called Haldane's dilemma because it is too slow for any macroevolution to be feasible. At this rate you can only fix 1,000 unlinked nucleotide mutations in 6 million years, the supposed time humans diverged from chimps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane 's_dilemma

"Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions."

So as usual, your parasitical form of creation pseudoscience takes the following form:

1. Take a problem, paradox, or issue first raised by scientists as they HONESTLY continue in their search for the truth.

2. Publicise the problem, but ignore the solution.

3. Claim it proves evolution (or an old universe) is false.

This is why nobody takes you lying nitwits seriously.

Next.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104096 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
True, when a planet moves far enough away, it's gravity will approach zero.
The strength of gravity exerted on the planet by the sun will decrease as the planet moves further away from the sun.

The strength of gravity that the planet exerts, on its own surface, will be unaffected whether its closer or further from the sun.

Likewise a planet orbiting the sun will stop orbiting if the sun disappears and revert to a "straight line" motion. However, the actual spin of the planet on its own axis will continue unaltered even if the sun disappears.

And, there is enough geothermal energy in the earth to keep basic chemosynthetic life forms going at the bottom of the deep ocean vents, so that if the sun disappeared, MOST life would cease on earth, but not all of it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104097 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Supposedly, mass, but then according to much in science, gravity is a theory, while schools teach it as a law.
Here is a LAW: "the force gravity decreases as the square of the distance between two massive bodies". A simple, observable, testable relationship.

The THEORY is about WHY does gravity behave in the way that it does? A different question. Is it an invisible force, or a curvature in space time, or an interaction between special subatomic particles, or something else entirely? What tests can we devise to show whether its one or the other? What different PREDICTIONS will the different theories make, so we can test them and find out which theory the evidence supports?

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104098 Oct 9, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane 's_dilemma
"Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions."
So as usual, your parasitical form of creation pseudoscience takes the following form:
1. Take a problem, paradox, or issue first raised by scientists as they HONESTLY continue in their search for the truth.
2. Publicise the problem, but ignore the solution.
3. Claim it proves evolution (or an old universe) is false.
This is why nobody takes you lying nitwits seriously.
Next.
DId you notice this?

"This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations.(December 2010)"

Did you notice that your quote comes not from science, but from the evotarded propaganda site TalkOrigins?

Also, you imply that honest science that hurts evolution is off-limits to Creationists and other dissenters but open to critisism by evolutionists? You actually think evotard propaganda is a higher authority than peer reviewed scientific research even when it is repeatedly validated by subsequent peer-reviewed research?

You're a piece of work Chimney. Macroevolution is impossible and never happned.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104099 Oct 9, 2012
This is what you value over peer-reviewed research?

3. Ian Musgrave. "The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 1999". Retrieved 2008-11-03.

On not only is it from TalkOrigins, it's by one of the most radical, darwin bloggers on the planet!

Chimney you really should do better homework before making a total fool of yourself.

Really? ROTFLMAO!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104100 Oct 9, 2012
Johny wrote:
This is simplistic reasoning.
Correct. In fact it's VERY simplistic. You still don't get it because you're a creationist.(shrug)
Johny wrote:
When you have all the mechanisms in place that allow for the development of the fetus then you will get the adult.
And we have all the mechanisms in place to allow for evolutionary development.
Johny wrote:
The problem is when you don't have all the mechanisms in place and you are relying on a roulette wheel of chance to get you the advancement.
Well since we DO have those mechanisms then it's not a problem. Entropy would need to kill us BEFORE we can procreate. If it can't do that, it can't affect evolution.

Like I said. VERY simple.
Johny wrote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about probability
Wrong. It's all about heat transfer. The clue is in the term itself - THERMO DYNAMICS.

This is what you get when you get your "science info" from religious apologists who don't have a clue about physics.
Johny wrote:
which is the root cause why you cannot get advancement.
Then it would also prevent development to adulthood. You can't have it both ways.
Johny wrote:
Life is designed
You have been unable to demonstrate that therefore this claim is dismissed.
Johny wrote:
with robustness or else it would just die out.
And if it's robust, it can still evolve. You're claiming it's robust but not robust. The fact is the mechanisms for evolution which you claim do not work are observed. You are quite simply arguing against reality.
Johny wrote:
All this points to ID, the rational view of our existence.
I am perfectly open to the possibility, but you have provided nothing to demonstrate this claim. Even if you were correct about how the SLoT operates (you aren't) all it would do is show evolution was wrong. You are relying on the argument "If not evolution then Goddidit with magic". Your claim must stand on its own. As of now it's currently undemonstrated.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104101 Oct 9, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
But what if life does not evolve?
What if fairies are real?

Guess what - life evolves. Observable fact.
Johny wrote:
What if this "evolving" is preprogrammed ID to allow for life to exist?
It may well be. But you fundies keep claiming the designer is too limited to be able to do that. So I keep asking them what exactly those limits are and how they were determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

Unfortunately they haven't been able to demonstrate that it even exists yet, much less what properties and abilities it has.
Johny wrote:
Your whole argument is built on a house of cards!
Not at all. The problem is you have a PROFOUND misunderstanding of physics and biology.

And then you're attempting to tell us that science somehow proves Goddidit with magic.

Seriously you need to take a time out for a sec.
Johny wrote:
What does an "energy positive planet" mean. This shows wherever you got this they did not know anything about thermo.
Oh, the irony...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104102 Oct 9, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I remember about astronomy, the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, with the sun being at one foci. So we're not always at the same distance as we would be if the orbit was circular. The trajectories are well described by math and physics, which are foundational to science, and supported by direct observation. With all due respect, I'd encourage you to study and understand traditional science before offering alternatives that are largely unsupported by observation. Real science is far more intriguing than fiction and fanciful armchair speculation, and may offer a more satisfying experience than mere conjecture. I'm wholly in favor of skepticism toward science, but you should understand the concepts it before presuming to criticize them. That's just my opinion.
Taxy's back!

DAMM YOU, NATURAL SELECTION!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104103 Oct 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Wow!! Is it just me or has Jimbo really gone off the deep end the last month or so? I know he has always been a bit crazy, but lately he has been truly Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
This is OLD news. Seriously. If he disappears again you know that it was because of the nice men in white coats.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104104 Oct 9, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't self-identified your level of education. I'm curious if you've even learned to "cut and paste", which I assume is learning the conventional, well established concepts. You should learn to crawl before you try to run, as it were.
Ryan is a 10th grade dropout. Figures, huh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104105 Oct 9, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious, and no offense is intended, but I'm just wondering what level of education you have. I ask this because you seem to have unconventional ideas about science, and I'm curious if this is what you learned in school.
It's all a big massive world-wide atheist evolutionist atheist conspiracy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104106 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 
Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.
Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 
On to Uranus!!! 
It is 14.537 times larger than earth and yet, it has but 91%of earths gravity. Notice!!!, Uranus rotates around the sun or barycenter, at just, 2.59 km/s. 
You can fit 750 earths inside Saturn and yet, Saturn has about the same gravity as earth. 
Saturns rotational rate is just, 9.63 km/s. 
Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the suns barycenter is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.
Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun and their respective barycenters at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.
On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?
According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 
Ahh, shaddap Jimbo.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104107 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
It's quite boring having no one of significant intelligence, with which to shatter the field.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through&#65279; life, son.

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) 38 min positronium 14,136
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr 15th Dalai Lama 70,135
DVDFab Passkey 9.1.1.8 Updated! 8 hr dvdlover 1
Desire Mad Dog RDTA Mech Kit, Luxury Design, Se... 9 hr luckyluckyluke 1
Dark Millions : Private Carding Forum (Feb '15) 10 hr blackrose 12
News City Of Stillwater Hacked For Resident's Person... Thu theyroll 1
News Look Who Got Busted: How To Remove Your Mug Sho... (May '11) Thu Mad_max 151
More from around the web