Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179619 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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#121272 Mar 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

[abiogenesis]Supports evolution. What is the problem?
<quoted text>
How can you sleep at night when you make such outlandish statements? You would have far more credibility if you acknowledged your ignorance. The impossibility of abiogenesis has reduced Darwinism to nothing, and you have the audacity to say that it supports it...
One way or another

United States

#121273 Mar 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Coward
LMAO, run to the end of your chain and bark poodle, bark.

You're whole nation did what a moron told them too. At least you morons had a choice. I should say, poodles.
One way or another

United States

#121274 Mar 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly you don't understand what this means nor do you understand how the data has been manipulated.
It is sickening that you claim to be educated any yet you don't know the first thing about evolution. You have absorbed simpleton creotard lies without ever bothering to check what science has to say.
This is what creation.com depends on. A massively ignorant base of fools that don't know how to think or question but will drop turn around, drop their pants and bend over on command.
Real Christian don't lie and don't quote liars. I suspect that you are possessed by a demon.
You're a desperate, delusional, moron. Thank your government schools.
One way or another

United States

#121275 Mar 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Stating facts is not special pleading. For it to be special pleading there has to be a reasonable counter with valid evidence.
<quoted text>
It is in over 100,000 journal articles, tens of thousands of books, the fossil record, the geological record, the genome,....
Do you really want me to embarrass you with the full list again?
<quoted text>
Because they have evolved.(DUH. I feel like I am talking with Forrest Gump.)
<quoted text>
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
Just a small sample.
You seem, like most creationists, to have this vague, generalized, fuzzy, mushy FEELING that evolution isn't true even though you have no evidence
Lets see your evidence
And quit the story telling
<quoted text>
Sorry, but your assertions are not supported by the evidence.
"Onychonycteris finneyi was the strongest evidence so far in the debate on whether bats developed echolocation before or after they evolved the ability to fly. O. finneyi had well-developed wings, and could clearly fly, but lacked the enlarged cochlea of all extant echolocating bats, closer resembling the old world fruit bats which do not echolocate.[1] This indicates that early bats could fly before they could echolocate.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris
It must suck to be a creationist.
<quoted text>
Why should there be? Bats evolved about 53 million years ago.
<quoted text>
All species are "perfectly developed". So you think God didn't get around to creating them till 53 million years ago? You know that mega bats and micro bats nearly as far seperated from each other as from human.
<quoted text>
Onychonycteris is a transitional as noted above.
I bet neither you, mugwump nor any in your clique can define manners-- in the case of eating, now can you. Of course only refined gentry understand such. That's how the so called gentry made themselves feel superior to all others. Then it just came down to money.
One way or another

United States

#121276 Mar 3, 2013
The gentry cared nothing for the mind and neither does money. You morons destroy man kinds only chance to save himself. You destroy children's minds for the sake of stupidity.
One way or another

United States

#121277 Mar 3, 2013
If you do not know justice, you will not know manners.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121278 Mar 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see that Russell has pierced your ideology to the center... Hence your ridiculous hissy fit.
No, there was no special pleading. All that you tards have been able to do is to try to mimic us when we point out your logical errors.

Like all sufferers of Dunning Kruger effect you always grossly overvalue any posts that you make.

If there was any meat to any of your claims they would have been recognized by scientists long long ago.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121279 Mar 3, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If you do not know justice, you will not know manners.
So this is the rationalization that Jimbo uses for his bad manners.

He believes that he was shorted by justice so he is eternally rude.

From what I have seen they weren't harsh enough on Jimbo.
One way or another

United States

#121280 Mar 3, 2013
Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits, where one object can hit another object and knock it out of orbit. However, everything in lower orbit will eventually fall back to earth., according to science. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its own gravity well, so testing would not be so easy.

Theory by ,--

Jim Ryan
One way or another

United States

#121281 Mar 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is the rationalization that Jimbo uses for his bad manners.
He believes that he was shorted by justice so he is eternally rude.
From what I have seen they weren't harsh enough on Jimbo.
Lol, all ya had ta say was you didn't know. Thanks moron.
One way or another

United States

#121282 Mar 3, 2013
Red shift and blue shift
More new science by Jim Ryan

The evolutionists have been saying that because a couple of scientists claimed that because most all the planets or galaxies we can see are in red shift, they say that means the universe is expanding and that it helps to prove the Big Bang theory, to which I say the following.----

Red shift, blue shift, shows the complete stupidity of all in the scientific world, that are either too stupid to understand how galaxies work or they are simply government stooges.

Just think about it. Science claims that red shift means the Big Bang is correct, but blue shift doesn't mean a shrinking universe, but more importantly, consider how our own insignificant solar system, revolves within our own galaxy, just as every other solar system within this and every other galaxy.

If we look at any planet within any galaxy, there will be times that each and every one will be going away from us at times and at other times, each and everyone will be coming towards us, just as galaxies can, dependent on where each galaxy is located, its speed and direction.

Surely there are galaxies ahead of the galaxies we see. We surely know that some galaxies do not move as fast as others, right? Wouldn't that mean that the faster galaxies are catching up to the slower galaxies that we can't see? Doesn't that mean that according to science on their worlds, that blue shift is dominant and a shrinking universe, at least according to our science?

Science is either very stupid or lying.
One way or another

United States

#121283 Mar 3, 2013
God forbid you're a teacher
You evolutionists make yourselves look like idiots, because you refuse anything that does not agree with evolution and its packaging.

Then you blame any and all that don't agree with your one sidedness.

You talk and act like idiots with only half a brain and then you feel the need to cry on each others shoulders for support, while as a group, you use childish nonsense.

You dumb down not only yourselves, but your children and god forbid you're a teacher.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121284 Mar 3, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, all ya had ta say was you didn't know. Thanks moron.
But we do know Jimbo. You were always the class idiot. It is amazing that you did not staple yourself to the carpet you install, or have you?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121285 Mar 3, 2013
I take it back, Jimbo is a comic genius.

Has anyone read anything as hilarious as his "red shift blue shift" post?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121286 Mar 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lesson from the coelacanth. Evo-morons were dead wrong about it... And now they expect everyone to accept their stories about tiktaalik.
There is no "prediction" in evolution that a living fossil (a species with only minor changes over a hundred million or more years,)should, or should not , exist. Coelacanth does not violate the nested hierarchy, so its existence is no problem for evolution.

Now, if we were to find a mammal from the time of the earliest coelacanths, THAT would violate a prediction of evolution. And after millions of fossil finds, not one mammal from the Cambrian, Ordovician or Permian periods.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121287 Mar 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The coelacanth has lobed fins and is not transitional, as had been expected before 1938. It represents yet another failed prediction of Darwinism.
Darwinism invariably fails on all counts to make scientific predictions.
One cannot observe an existing reality and then retrospectively claim that evolution "predicted" it.
A few of the actual predictions of Darwinism that have failed miserably:
1. Transitions on the fossil record
2. Lamarckism
3. Coelacanth
4. Failed Junk DNA debacle
5. Collapse of Genetic determinism
6. ERV functionality
7. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes
8. Complexity of the genetic code.
9. Abiogenesis
10. Failure of Radiometric dating
11. Impossibility of functional intermediates
How much more scientific evidence to you need amassed to be convinced of the fallacy of evolution?
So many strawmen I could light a bonfire.

1. Transitions on the fossil record - we have many intermediates

2. Lamarckism - never a prediction of Darwinism, in fact Darwin specifically aimed to refute it.

3. Coelacanth - no problem with living fossils for evolution.

4. Failed Junk DNA debacle - even ENCODE still only predicts 20% useful function in the genome.

5. Collapse of Genetic determinism - not a necessary prediction of evolution in the forst place.

6. ERV functionality - 99% of ERVs are still known to be non-functional

7. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes - gobbldygook. So what? Never heard of convergence?

8. Complexity of the genetic code - as expected in evolution. Why not?

9. Abiogenesis - not part of the theory of evolution

10. Failure of Radiometric dating - in your dreams, fool.

11. Impossibility of functional intermediates - garbage. You cannot make a single claim for a functionless intermediate that was an essential step for a single final structure. You cannot KNOW all the possible intermediates or their functions.

Thats anti-evolutionism in a nutshell. False, strawman, illogical, pile of rubbish, only good for convincing those who NEED to believe. You can buy all this crap if you want, but science will continue to ignore you and your ilk for as long as you do.

Got any GOOD arguments?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121288 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close Chimney. Now why is it that we are expected to keep up with your evolution stories but you folks feel no need to learn the basics of creation Science? If you took the time to learn it you would see that it is far more supported than evolution.
The basics of creation science are all in Genesis.

You start with the conclusion, and like a crooked cop, select only the evidence that you think can be made to fit.

Nobody started with an age for the earth or a mechanism for evolution. No pre-conceived notions. We learned these things from what the universe revealed in the form of physical evidence.

Hindus and Muslims do the same thing you do and are equally convinced that reality backs their myths too.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121289 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close Chimney. Now why is it that we are expected to keep up with your evolution stories but you folks feel no need to learn the basics of creation Science? If you took the time to learn it you would see that it is far more supported than evolution.
The fact is that if a "alien" came here with no preconceptions, and just looked at the data, he would NEVER conclude that...

1. modern forms of animals and plants existed from the beginning. Its just not that way in the fossil record.

2. the earth formed in six days 6-10,000 years ago

3. there was a global flood 4500 year ago.

4. all modern human and animal and plant populations are a result of a diaspora 4500 years ago form the middle east.

5. early men lived 300-900 years

etc. etc. etc.

You can go through the millions of megabytes of data we have on all of this and try to cherry pick a few bits to support your biases, but that is as far as you get.

Good luck with that.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#121290 Mar 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Stating facts is not special pleading. For it to be special pleading there has to be a reasonable counter with valid evidence.
<quoted text>
It is in over 100,000 journal articles, tens of thousands of books, the fossil record, the geological record, the genome,....
Do you really want me to embarrass you with the full list again?
<quoted text>
Because they have evolved.(DUH. I feel like I am talking with Forrest Gump.)
<quoted text>
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
Just a small sample.
You seem, like most creationists, to have this vague, generalized, fuzzy, mushy FEELING that evolution isn't true even though you have no evidence
Lets see your evidence
And quit the story telling
<quoted text>
Sorry, but your assertions are not supported by the evidence.
"Onychonycteris finneyi was the strongest evidence so far in the debate on whether bats developed echolocation before or after they evolved the ability to fly. O. finneyi had well-developed wings, and could clearly fly, but lacked the enlarged cochlea of all extant echolocating bats, closer resembling the old world fruit bats which do not echolocate.[1] This indicates that early bats could fly before they could echolocate.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris
It must suck to be a creationist.
<quoted text>
Why should there be? Bats evolved about 53 million years ago.
<quoted text>
All species are "perfectly developed". So you think God didn't get around to creating them till 53 million years ago? You know that mega bats and micro bats nearly as far seperated from each other as from human.
<quoted text>
Onychonycteris is a transitional as noted above.
Listen Bud....
Don't start blubbering...

Evo-god is a nut job...
DEMANDING your complete acquiesce....

At least read the foolish links that you provide

"However, an independent evaluation of the Onychonycteris reference fossil in 2010 provided some evidence for other bone structures indicative of laryngeal echolocation, raising the possibility that Onychonycteris finneyi possessed the ability to echolocate after all.[5] "

All this reeks of evo-desperation...

You have no science...

Just wailing and squawks and rants....

200, 000,000 fossils and NONE are transitional and NONE with ancestors....

Go figure?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121291 Mar 3, 2013
No, Russell. Technically all fossils are transitional.

You cannot recognize the fact that we have more than enough since your belief in a book written by bronze age camel humpers blinds your eyes.

Why are all creatards afraid to learn what evidence is?

I suppose because the few that do realize that they were wrong all of the time. The rest, like Rusty and How's That realize that they will have to admit they have lost if they make that effort.

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) 9 min Chimney1 31,348
News Amsterdam sex robot BROTHEL 'will help prevent ... 1 hr CharlySimons 7
News Five Pacific islands vanish from sight as sea l... 6 hr Into The Night 135
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 6 hr ChristineM 9,738
News Amy Schumer blasts critics, says she's 'strong'... 18 hr Three Psyche 5
Hotcig DX75 75W Box Mod with Evolv's DNA75 chipset Sat perty 1
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Fri Study hard 665
More from around the web