Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111588 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.. Who listens to high profile ministers without clutching their wallets these days? Christianity is a broken money racket far removed from the teachings of Christ... And would be the first ready to crucify him again upon his return...

Amen!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#111591 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
Why not God? Or alien technology?
Evidence for the existence of a "god" or of aliens?(And if aliens, who made the aliens?)
defender

Tucker, GA

#111592 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "the loss of information"? It has been shown how the various ways that mutation occur that there is either an adding or changing of the genome. And calling the genome "information" is not totally correct. It is more of a recipe of how to put proteins together. Mutations are merely changes in the recipe. Of course that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but still more correct than to call it "information".

I think you misunderstood my computer reference. Computer programs can mimic populations under going evolution using Natural Selection and Random Mutation. It had nothing to do with computer viruses.

Are you still denying the fact that there are literally tons of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that support creationism? Or do we have to go through what scientific evidence is again?
The loss of information or deleted information has shown to be beneficial to spices in many cases... How do you not know that?... And you cannot have a recipe without information (common since)... Tons of evidence? You never gave me one shred... And finally I'm stating the if natural selection occurs for the benefit of spices it must have been designed... Working systems do not work without intelligent design... And thats not even getting into dependency of other life to survive... And yes I understand you computer reference... What about thousands of generations of e coli and bacteria grown in labs never showing any observable evolution... Despite all the mutation it all dies the same spices it was...
One way or another

United States

#111593 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.. Who listens to high profile ministers without clutching their wallets these days? Christianity is a broken money racket far removed from the teachings of Christ... And would be the first ready to crucify him again upon his return...
Heu boy, even the morons on this site were right about you. You run your mouth and then run away.
One way or another

United States

#111594 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The loss of information or deleted information has shown to be beneficial to spices in many cases... How do you not know that?... And you cannot have a recipe without information (common since)... Tons of evidence? You never gave me one shred... And finally I'm stating the if natural selection occurs for the benefit of spices it must have been designed... Working systems do not work without intelligent design... And thats not even getting into dependency of other life to survive... And yes I understand you computer reference... What about thousands of generations of e coli and bacteria grown in labs never showing any observable evolution... Despite all the mutation it all dies the same spices it was...
If anyone needs to hide behind the clique, it's you boy, you are completely unarmed.
defender

Tucker, GA

#111595 Dec 9, 2012
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>Heu boy, even the morons on this site were right about you. You run your mouth and then run away.
Got anything with any substance bud?...
defender

Tucker, GA

#111596 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence for the existence of a "god" or of aliens?(And if aliens, who made the aliens?)
Evidence for life arising from chemical soup?... Lab experiments? Anything?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111597 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The loss of information or deleted information has shown to be beneficial to spices in many cases... How do you not know that?... And you cannot have a recipe without information (common since)... Tons of evidence? You never gave me one shred... And finally I'm stating the if natural selection occurs for the benefit of spices it must have been designed... Working systems do not work without intelligent design... And thats not even getting into dependency of other life to survive... And yes I understand you computer reference... What about thousands of generations of e coli and bacteria grown in labs never showing any observable evolution... Despite all the mutation it all dies the same spices it was...
Let's talk about evidence first. You have shown that you do not understand what evidence is. Scientists are a contentious lot and they know this. There will always be some idiot, like you, that denies obvious evidence. So they came up with a definition of evidence to make it impossible for deniers to make their claims. Scientific evidence is any observed facts or data that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. That is the definition of scientific evidence. If you don't trust me look it up for yourself. That means, since the fossil record agrees with the theory of evolution, it is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Since the observed hierarchy of life agrees with the theory of evolution it supports the theory of evolution. Since modern genetics agrees with the theory of evolution it supports the theory of evolution. All of these are by definition evidence that support the theory of evolution. This is not MY definition it is SCIENCE's definition.

So I have shown that there are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Now, on the flip side. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. And that is not the fault of evolutionists. That is the fault of creationists who will not develop a working hypothesis of creation. We don't need to know all of the details of how creation was done to generate a hypothesis, all it has to do is to explain why we observe what we observe. And creationists are too afraid to do that since if they developed a hypothesis it could be tested by science. So, no scientific evidence for creation, by definition.

And what do you mean thousands of generations of E. coli in the lab and no evolution? Are you kidding me? You have not heard of the experiment where E. coli evolved so that it could digest citrate. An ability that it normally does not have.
One way or another

United States

#111598 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Got anything with any substance bud?...
Dont cry nub, just go hide behind the clique, because you are wrong most everytime and it's obvious you like it that way. I don't need to go back and retrieve your stupidity and how I proved you wrong, because you're going to make yourself out to be the idiot you choose to be.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111599 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence for life arising from chemical soup?... Lab experiments? Anything?
Please don't conflate evolution and abiogenesis. You have to learn the difference between the two.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#111600 Dec 9, 2012
I suspect Jimbo has mutated into yet another alter ego - I say mutated, not evolved.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111601 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Got anything with any substance bud?...

That is just Psycho having a hissy fit?

Remember, he is psycho.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#111602 Dec 9, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just Psycho having a hissy fit?
Remember, he is psycho.
The irony being he periodically accuses others of using multiple IDs and to my knowledge he is the only one to do it, and even posted under others user names to add to his dishonesty.

It's a shame, for about a week he seemed to actually want to engage in discussion, but he has resorted to his normal approach I guess.
One way or another

United States

#111603 Dec 9, 2012
Some jealous boy signed up as psychology, because I tried many times to use it. Instead of crying like chimney and the clique when I used his moniker, I just use another and the morons are still crying. LOL
One way or another

United States

#111604 Dec 9, 2012
No name in the world amounts to a hill of beans. The only thing that matters, is what is said and why. By the cliques insessant lies, nasty childishness and their constant deceit, they prove who they are and that their names-- monikers, mean nothing, because their words and meanings are worth nothing.
defender

Tucker, GA

#111605 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Let's talk about evidence first. You have shown that you do not understand what evidence is. Scientists are a contentious lot and they know this. There will always be some idiot, like you, that denies obvious evidence. So they came up with a definition of evidence to make it impossible for deniers to make their claims. Scientific evidence is any observed facts or data that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. That is the definition of scientific evidence. If you don't trust me look it up for yourself. That means, since the fossil record agrees with the theory of evolution, it is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Since the observed hierarchy of life agrees with the theory of evolution it supports the theory of evolution. Since modern genetics agrees with the theory of evolution it supports the theory of evolution. All of these are by definition evidence that support the theory of evolution. This is not MY definition it is SCIENCE's definition.

So I have shown that there are mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Now, on the flip side. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism. And that is not the fault of evolutionists. That is the fault of creationists who will not develop a working hypothesis of creation. We don't need to know all of the details of how creation was done to generate a hypothesis, all it has to do is to explain why we observe what we observe. And creationists are too afraid to do that since if they developed a hypothesis it could be tested by science. So, no scientific evidence for creation, by definition.

And what do you mean thousands of generations of E. coli in the lab and no evolution? Are you kidding me? You have not heard of the experiment where E. coli evolved so that it could digest citrate. An ability that it normally does not have.
I don't care if the e coli can slam a basket ball... What did it die as? Same as it always was E coli... No one disputes mutation and yes I'm aware of the Dawkins experiment... If you're going to bring that quack into this argument than I'm pulling out Behe and round and round we go... Bottom line is no spices has ever been proven to change into a completely different one.. You seem to want to hang your hat on that one but it's not going to fly... Now getting to the so called mountains of evidence...
Fossil record?... Yeah that's been real truthful coming from your side... Planting ape jaws on human skeletons... Really?.... Glorifying a 47 million year old rat as the great missing link (Ida)... Come on man.... Please ...
defender

Tucker, GA

#111607 Dec 9, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>The irony being he periodically accuses others of using multiple IDs and to my knowledge he is the only one to do it, and even posted under others user names to add to his dishonesty.

It's a shame, for about a week he seemed to actually want to engage in discussion, but he has resorted to his normal approach I guess.
Well he sure ain't helping my side any...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111608 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if the e coli can slam a basket ball... What did it die as? Same as it always was E coli... No one disputes mutation and yes I'm aware of the Dawkins experiment... If you're going to bring that quack into this argument than I'm pulling out Behe and round and round we go... Bottom line is no spices has ever been proven to change into a completely different one.. You seem to want to hang your hat on that one but it's not going to fly... Now getting to the so called mountains of evidence...
Fossil record?... Yeah that's been real truthful coming from your side... Planting ape jaws on human skeletons... Really?.... Glorifying a 47 million year old rat as the great missing link (Ida)... Come on man.... Please ...
In science we don't use "proof" we use evidence. And there is more than enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. Remember that the concept of scientific evidence was designed to deal with deniers like you.

And yes, there have been a few, and that is a very few frauds in the history of evolution. You cannot use the few frauds to debunk the theory. If that were the case Christianity, and theism in general would have been debunked ages ago. There have been thousands of religious frauds over the history of the world. Do those prove your religious beliefs to be wrong?

I am more than fair and will not stand for cheating. You just tried to cheat. Don't do that.

So yes, the fossil record is only one form of overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Don't you think that if creationism was true that some smart creationist could not have devised a "theory of creationism". None has and that shouts volumes. They know it is too easy using existing evidence to debunk any of their claims.

So what do you believe in?

What is the supporting evidence for that belief?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111609 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well he sure ain't helping my side any...
Psycho Jim does not help anyone. He is the ultimate creationist. He has gone so far around the bend that it would not be surprising if he started arguing with himself.

How many different names has he had here? I know of 5 or 6 myself and I am sure that there are more.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#111611 Dec 9, 2012
Just to clarify - the country of Jimbo has gone over the delusional cliff as it were

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 Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 8 min NightSerf 10,094
Smoant Battlestar Box Mod – A Bridge Between Ne... 23 min perty 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 55 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 43,417
looking a-z direct and stable n-cli route 2 hr ns markhill 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 3 hr SoE 10,850
News Good boy! Dogs know what you're saying, study s... 6 hr Suezanne 13
News A timeline of Anthony Weiner's saga 10 hr engry yuser 1
More from around the web