Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180382 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: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131296 May 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Here is a fact for you all. It only takes ONE person with Faith in God to get half a dozen of you evolution tards up in a roar that have to resort to rants, belittling and name calling and still not presenting any facts. LMAO
We don't have problem with people who have faith in god. We have problems with idiots who won't look at the evidence. That is why they are called creatards. After a person shows himself to be an idiot by falsely claiming that undeniable scientific evidence is not evidence I politely point out that they are wrong and offer to help them learn what is scientific evidence. If they have to too much of a donkey excavation I will demand an apology eventually before I help them learn.

When they reject that they have earned the label of creatard.

No evolutionist has ever claimed that evolution disproves god. It might disprove certain myths about god, the sort that you see in Genesis, but the theory does not disprove the existence of god himself.

And the belittling only comes about when said tard continues to make idiotic posts. After a while you have to call a tard a tard. No amount of politeness will cure some people. Then it is time to pull out the 2 by 4's.
LowellGuy

United States

#131297 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read Origin of Species cover to cover.
Why do you lie?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#131298 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speak for yourself.
OK let me rephrase that:

Mankind evolved from the great ape line!!

:-)

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131300 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that quotations do not constitute science. I was merely responding to Gilette's incessant posting of the quote from Christians at Baylor University. It doesn't matter if the Pope or other Christians believe in ToE. Science is not established by consensus, so I think we're agreeing with each other.
Correct, but consensus is a strong indicator of which side is correct. Especially if it can be shown that the opposition has no clue. And amazingly enough, even with the top scientists, when it comes to evolution that is correct more than 90% of the time.

The few scientists that the Discovery Institute and such other anti-science groups can come up with are almost always shown to be out of their league when they get out of their specialty and try to do evolutionary science. They might write a bit more "prettily" than the typical morons that they started with, but they still can't do science out of their major without making gross errors.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#131301 May 24, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
This guy gets it... Y'all should listen up...
Neither one of you gets it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#131302 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that quotations do not constitute science. I was merely responding to Gilette's incessant posting of the quote from Christians at Baylor University. It doesn't matter if the Pope or other Christians believe in ToE. Science is not established by consensus, so I think we're agreeing with each other.
The folks at Baylor are very special. They are a Baptist religious College supported by religious folks and yet they have a science department that is totally committed to Darwin and his theory....no 'creation science' to be found there..:-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#131303 May 24, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't talk to me about science if you don't understand what oxygen in the early atmosphere would have done to any early life... Idiot...
The Great Oxygenation Event occurred almost 2 billion years ago. Life was already well established by that point. Idiot.
LowellGuy

United States

#131304 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is undeniably directional. Example...independent evolution of complex image forming eyes 50-100 times in nature.
Mutations are random. If you state that evolution is non-random, you have to deal with the innumerable harmful mutations that invariably appear.
Mutations are random. Natural selection is not.

If you play poker, and you get dealt five cards, those five cards you got were random. But, if you have two aces, a seven of diamonds, a four of spades, and a queen of clubs, what will happen? Will you randomly select cards of a random quantity (up to five), or would you keep the aces and discard the rest? Would your opponents randomly discard? When you're at the end of the hand, is the winner a random outcome? If yes, then there would be no strategy to poker, and nobody could be good at it. Is this the case?

Just like the winner in poker isn't random, the traits that get passed on aren't random, either.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131305 May 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You know it is amazing how much Darwin got right straight from the get go, considering he didn't know about genetics or have a strong fossil record to work with.
Yes, and worse yet for the creatrds, who claim consensus is not "proof" that you are right, is the fact that all fossil finds fit perfectly within the Theory of Evolution paradigm. Meanwhile the creation nuts cannot even come up with a working Hypothesis of Creation. What animals were "before the flood"? How were the sedimentary rocks laid down? How do we explain the geologic column? Etc.. All questions that cannot be formally placed in a paper or answered by the creatards without blowing a gasket. All proposed mechanisms to date have been quickly debunked by reality.

The few that can do science know this and leave the question alone. Those that can't do science are laughed off for the sheer stupidity of their papers.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131306 May 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have problem with people who have faith in god. We have problems with idiots who won't look at the evidence. That is why they are called creatards. After a person shows himself to be an idiot by falsely claiming that undeniable scientific evidence is not evidence I politely point out that they are wrong and offer to help them learn what is scientific evidence. If they have to too much of a donkey excavation I will demand an apology eventually before I help them learn.
When they reject that they have earned the label of creatard.
No evolutionist has ever claimed that evolution disproves god. It might disprove certain myths about god, the sort that you see in Genesis, but the theory does not disprove the existence of god himself.
And the belittling only comes about when said tard continues to make idiotic posts. After a while you have to call a tard a tard. No amount of politeness will cure some people. Then it is time to pull out the 2 by 4's.
Well said.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131307 May 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution Theory has three aspects: hereditary changes, appearance of new species, and a theory explaining both of these. Currently there are several theories of evolution so a precise definition of evolution is IMPOSSIBLE. Most definitions of evolution make no claims as to the existence or non-existence of a God, though evolution is often associated with atheism.
How many different theories are out there? Many because they keep changing them because they really have NO IDEA what really happened. As I said once before what you all believe now will change in 20-40 or more years as the theories that are around now get out dated, proven wrong by new theories of the future generations.
Now you all go on and on about facts and proof. A fact is something that is true without a doubt and doesn't change. If those scientific facts were true they would not be forever changing them. What they call facts now will change in the future. So they are just theories of "guessing" or "we think" until something else or new proves us wrong. Their "guessing" and "we think" are like a diaper. Put in place to satisfy the need of the study and to satisfy the people that believe in it but it gets changed when it starts to stink from all the crap it holds. Fact is on both accounts Evolution and God; no one really knows what happened. That is for sure a fact!
Again where is all the evidence to support these claims. You don't get to falsely harp on the rest of us while you weasel out providing evidence.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131308 May 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but consensus is a strong indicator of which side is correct. Especially if it can be shown that the opposition has no clue. And amazingly enough, even with the top scientists, when it comes to evolution that is correct more than 90% of the time.
The few scientists that the Discovery Institute and such other anti-science groups can come up with are almost always shown to be out of their league when they get out of their specialty and try to do evolutionary science. They might write a bit more "prettily" than the typical morons that they started with, but they still can't do science out of their major without making gross errors.
In 1400 there was a strong scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system. Those individuals were no less intelligent than scientists living today. Take a lesson from history.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131309 May 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
One proton plus one electron = 1 hydrogen atom
This is your fact and proof of evolution?? LMMFAO
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131310 May 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The folks at Baylor are very special. They are a Baptist religious College supported by religious folks and yet they have a science department that is totally committed to Darwin and his theory....no 'creation science' to be found there..:-)
You need to bear in mind that most academicians are extremely bised toward a liberal/progressive/socialist philosophy, which includes Darwinism. Although I don't care what a Baptist college thinks, you nevertheless must maintain a correct perspective of who these people represent.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131311 May 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Again where is all the evidence to support these claims. You don't get to falsely harp on the rest of us while you weasel out providing evidence.
Here is just one. I won't waste time giving you many for no matter what is presented you will just run it down and say it is lies, stupid, or something.

Scientific theory:
The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
1. The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/scie...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131312 May 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and worse yet for the creatrds, who claim consensus is not "proof" that you are right, is the fact that all fossil finds fit perfectly within the Theory of Evolution paradigm. Meanwhile the creation nuts cannot even come up with a working Hypothesis of Creation. What animals were "before the flood"? How were the sedimentary rocks laid down? How do we explain the geologic column? Etc.. All questions that cannot be formally placed in a paper or answered by the creatards without blowing a gasket. All proposed mechanisms to date have been quickly debunked by reality.
The few that can do science know this and leave the question alone. Those that can't do science are laughed off for the sheer stupidity of their papers.
It's interesting to watch evo-tards lick their wounds as their religion is eviscerated by the sword of scientific logic.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131313 May 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations are random. Natural selection is not.
If you play poker, and you get dealt five cards, those five cards you got were random. But, if you have two aces, a seven of diamonds, a four of spades, and a queen of clubs, what will happen? Will you randomly select cards of a random quantity (up to five), or would you keep the aces and discard the rest? Would your opponents randomly discard? When you're at the end of the hand, is the winner a random outcome? If yes, then there would be no strategy to poker, and nobody could be good at it. Is this the case?
Just like the winner in poker isn't random, the traits that get passed on aren't random, either.
Natural selection can't work like your analogy, because only one mutation in millions would be beneficial, and all of the rest would need to be weeded out. Your analogy is further flawed by the fact that intelligent human beings are selecting the preferred cards for an end goal, unlike any proposed mechanism of natural selection.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131314 May 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is just one. I won't waste time giving you many for no matter what is presented you will just run it down and say it is lies, stupid, or something.
Scientific theory:
The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:
1. The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage.
3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.
http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/scie...
This is a simplistic rendering of the theory we have been talking about. This isn't three theories. It is one.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131315 May 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Again where is all the evidence to support these claims. You don't get to falsely harp on the rest of us while you weasel out providing evidence.
Or if you like to go by your all's Wikipedia and such here is you another one.
Evolution has been described as "fact and theory", "fact not theory", "only a theory, not a fact", "multiple theories, not fact", and "neither fact, nor theory".

The word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:[8]
1.The general sense of change over time.
2.All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
3.The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

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

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131316 May 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting to watch evo-tards lick their wounds as their religion is eviscerated by the sword of scientific logic.
What thread is it where that is happening? Link please.

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 Microsoft Paint may be 'dead' soon 6 min Unspecified_2_u 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Science 77,044
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 8 hr SoE 14,393
News 'Transformers: The Last Knight' sets a new low ... 14 hr FrenchVanilla88 2
Wearing diapers makes people incotinent BEWARE (Dec '10) 14 hr Anonymous 33
News Angry lawmaker singles out 'female senators'... 15 hr Trumpsajoke 2
1Z0-347 Exam Dumps - Valid Oracle 1Z0-347 Exam ... Jul 23 denisenfritz 1
More from around the web