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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104108 Oct 9, 2012
Tyler in the Clouds wrote:
I'ma be honest Psychology, I'm not actually sure of your intellect at all.
Don't worry, neither is he.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104109 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
You say you are sure of my intellect and at the same time you claim you don't understand.
Sincerity achieves, while the rest falls away.
It's pointless to try to have a decent conversation with Ryan, Tyler. He's a certified wacko.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104111 Oct 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, it's all part of the evil world-wide atheist evolutionist Jewish conspiracy.

Hey look, you're just as credible as Jimbo!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104112 Oct 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's pointless to try to have a decent conversation with Ryan, Tyler. He's a certified wacko.
Correction: I don't think he's been officially certified yet.

But if he spends more time around people it could be an inevitability.
Psychology

United States

#104113 Oct 9, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Axis spin will not continue, unless you can show proof.

The last is likely wrong, but there's no proof.
Psychology

United States

#104114 Oct 9, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Like I also said, we can see the effects, but the reasons are not proveable as yet .

On my last post, I should have said theat
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#104115 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Axis spin will not continue, unless you can show proof.
Oh, wow. More scientific ignorance from Jacksonville Jim.

In the absence of friction (such as in the vacuum of space), a spinning body (such as a planet) will continue spinning indefinitely. It's called Conservation of Angular Momentum.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104116 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Axis spin will not continue, unless you can show proof.
The last is likely wrong, but there's no proof.
Clueless.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104117 Oct 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well, there are plenty of sources of HONEST scientists who have investigated Haldane's dilemma and it simply disappears under the weight of its own erroneous assumptions.

For starters:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html

Honest science that would hurt evolution is not off-limits, and in fact something like Haldane's dilemma is not swept under the rug as you love to imply but is debated and researched openly and frankly.

Its only you creotards who snip out the parts of the debate you want to hear and ignore the rest.

On yer bike, you anti-rational anti-science little twerp. 6000 year old earth. I just cannot believe that you believe that!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104118 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Axis spin will not continue, unless you can show proof.
The last is likely wrong, but there's no proof.
Yes axis spin will continue. It would actually take a strong force to STOP the planet from spinning. It takes no new force (from the sun or anywhere else) to keep it spinning once its started. And since there is hardly any friction in space, it will keep spinning for billions of years more unless something comes alone to disrupt it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104119 Oct 9, 2012
correction "something comes ALONG to disrupt it".

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#104121 Oct 9, 2012
monkey for evonuts wrote:
<quoted text>Look who is the ignorant savage,look yourself in the mirrorfirst and ask yourself the question:I am really an idiot? but as soon as you stop looking you"ll be back to been a dogbegone. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis has been disproven and is nothing more than erroneous. Don't ask me for any sources. If you were a smart person you would do into your own reading. Spontaneous generation--in its classical sense, the development of a fully functioning organism arising from nonliving material --does not occur. Nothing 'spontaneously' springs into life. Not even bacteria. So no big bang happened either. This is just a hypothetical "explosive" that even scientists are saying is only a theory with causes unknown.. DOGBEGONE and scientis of nuts,the one zillion dollar question is: how organism arising from nonliving material came to exist? boo boo the clown.
Unintentionally hilarious.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#104122 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Axis spin will not continue...
Great. You say so, just show proof of your claim.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104123 Oct 9, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Great. You say so, just show proof of your claim.
Science may be getting closer to explain Ryan.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/...

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104124 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 
Your "hypothesis" consists of random facts that you have cut-paste from various websites. You have yet to provide a link to verify that "today's scientists claim mars gravity is 1/6th of earth". We know the moon has 1/6th of earth's gravity, so it is a reasonable assumption that you confused mars gravity with that of the moon unless you can provide a link.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104125 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 
The last paragraph of your "hypothesis" should contain a conclusion that relates to the above statements. Without a conclusion there is no hypothesis.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104126 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.
So you would propose gravity as a guideline?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104127 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Does this mean that you are abandoning your previous hypothesis?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104128 Oct 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Ryan is a 10th grade dropout. Figures, huh?
But he has a degree in astrophysics from Homeschool U.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#104129 Oct 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
according to much in science, gravity is a theory, while schools teach it as a law.
You've confused two different things:

1. Newton's law of universal gravitation is an equation that attempts to *describe* what is observed. That's what scientific laws *are*: descriptions (very frequently in the form of mathematical equations) that describe a set of observations.

2. The *theory* of gravitation is an explanation of the *mechanism* that results in gravity. Currently, that would be spacetime curvature.

Schools teach both.

It would help if you understood that you were confusing two different things.

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) 7 min Into The Night 51,427
News Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's sentence in Wi... 34 min Compromised at th... 1
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 41 min Eagle 12 11,403
News Virtual Reality Headsets May Come With Health R... 3 hr Gpo344 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 5 hr SoE 12,266
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 67
News Real Estate Agents: Single-Family Homes a Hot R... (Jun '12) 14 hr koko32 254
More from around the web