Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150980 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's BS, tell him in terms that are easily understood for all.
Oh, I have 10 hot dogs, I eat one a day and they roll out the other end the next, so you see, right. Rotflmao again.
Okay - you win - will let HTS critique that post along with your spin dizzy earth science

Strange that HTS got all elusive when you asked him for comments - sure you will keep asking him for his valued opinion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150981 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Questioning dogma is not rejection of science.
It is the heart and soul of science.

The heart and soul of science is that the hypothesis/theory is the best fit for the actual data.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#150982 Sep 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, now you have assumed that the C14 atoms have knowledge of each other. They don't.
It is a continual process but think of it as once every 5730 years each atom gets a turn on the coin flipper.
The atoms ahve no idea what the other atoms got as a result. Their result will be 50/50 every 5730 years. For an element with a longer half life there is just a longer period between turns at the coin flipper.
Sub lets use decay of 3 rocks with the same identical make up. They are the same shape(round) but one is 1 and 1/2 times larger than the small one and one is twice as large as the small one. If they are exposed to fast running water constantly. The decay rate should be the same. So if it took 100 years for the smaller rock to completely decay away it would make complete sense that the rock that is 1 and 1/2 times larger would take 150 years and the rock that is twice as large will take 200 years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150983 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No Dogen...that is not remotely true.
Show me the data that includes ALL results through blind testing.(No cherry picking allowed).
Show me how radiometric dating can accurately and reproducibly date lava flows of KOWN dates.
John Woodmorappe, a geologist who has done extensive research on the validity of radiometric dating, concluded,
"The use of radiometric dating in geology involves a very selective acceptance of data. Most discrepant dates are not published. This selective reporting may account for consistencies in the data; internal consistencies, mineral-pair concordances, and agreements between differing dating methods may be illusory."*
*Woodmorappe, John, 1979. Radiometric geochronology reappraised. Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2): 102-129.
*Woodmorappe, John. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. El Cajon, CA: ICR.
Selective interpretation of data is not a minor weakness. It is scientific fraud.

John Woodmorappe is not a ph.d, last heard, he works as a substitute teacher.

He simply is a creationism pusher with no credibility and even less science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150984 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have done nothing to discredit his research.
He was not a "failed" teacher.
And how does being a school teacher demonstrate that his research is tainted?

He did no actual research.

Do you know what research is?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150985 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're claiming to be smarter than Alan Dershowitz, the famous attorney, lol, I just want to hear you, a moron, say it.

You are claiming to be smarter than all of the scientists on the planet.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150987 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're a lying fruking moron. Every animal and their bones can be carbon dated, just as every creature.
Go lie to the children, your little childish clique and science are good at that. You are as un-American as you can be.

It would go better for you if you actually read before you posted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150988 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's BS, tell him in terms that are easily understood for all.
Oh, I have 10 hot dogs, I eat one a day and they roll out the other end the next, so you see, right. Rotflmao again.

Actually, his explanation was very simple. I am not sure how he could have dumbed it down any further.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150989 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Fruk off moron, ya got nuthin.
Radiation experiment!
So here's a new thought experiment!
How would you explain the decay rate of radiation, in your own words.

Radiation does not decay.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150990 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a reasonable explanation, none of you Evo morons offered a reason why.
I said I could be wrong.
Why don't you Evo morons show I'm wrong, by giving the right answer, if you can copy and paste it from somewhere.
My answer came off the top of my head so to speak, at a moments notice.

Being stupid quickly is not a great feat.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150991 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Show proof through science, for what you claim, idiot boy, I bet you can't.

What can't be done is dumb anything down low enough for you to understand it.
HTS

Williston, ND

#150992 Sep 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
John Woodmorappe is not a ph.d, last heard, he works as a substitute teacher.
He simply is a creationism pusher with no credibility and even less science.
Transparent dodge, Dogen.
Show me the data.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150996 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Transparent dodge, Dogen.
Show me the data.

That was the data. Do you not understand what data is?

Data is factual information.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
John Woodmorappe is not a ph.d, last heard, he works as a substitute teacher.
He simply is a creationism pusher with no credibility and even less science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#150998 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, just most of them.

Most of them have car batteries smarter than you.

In evidence I give you Jimbo Science.

Remember: spin is part of gravity.
One way or another

United States

#150999 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Fruk off moron, ya got nuthin.
Radiation experiment!
So here's a new thought experiment!
How would you explain

"the decay rate of radiation,"

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#151000 Sep 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You know what might be hilarious?
Who here would like to see Jim try to explain radioactive decay?
Why do you call him Jim? Did le Jimbo get banned for being unpleasant?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#151001 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub lets use decay of 3 rocks with the same identical make up. They are the same shape(round) but one is 1 and 1/2 times larger than the small one and one is twice as large as the small one. If they are exposed to fast running water constantly. The decay rate should be the same. So if it took 100 years for the smaller rock to completely decay away it would make complete sense that the rock that is 1 and 1/2 times larger would take 150 years and the rock that is twice as large will take 200 years.
Are you familiar with Avagadro's Number? There are 6.02210^23 atoms in 1 mole of carbon which is 12 g
There are so many atoms in 12g
That the decay rate will be the same for 1 mole as it would for 10 pounds. it takes exactly the same amount of time to reduce 1 mole
to half life as 10 lbs
Exactly the same time for 1/2 mole to reduce as 5 lbs.
Etc.

1 mole = 6.02210^23 = 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 atoms.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#151002 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So at half life from 100 percent to 50 percent at 50 percent does the physical constants of the atoms themselves change to validate another 5,730 years?
We don't necessarily know WHY it occurs as it occurs, but we do know THAT it occurs as it occurs. The "why" would be really great to know, but it's no more necessary to know to be able to calculate half-lives of elements than it is to know how wheat came to be cultivated by man to understand that wheat can be used to bake a cake.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#151004 Sep 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>And the origins of the universe are as relevant to understanding biodiversity as the origins of the universe are to understanding how to bake a cake.
Make mine Angels food cake. You can have the devils food cake.
Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#151005 Sep 9, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you call him Jim? Did le Jimbo get banned for being unpleasant?
He has had several screen names over the years, he doesn't get banned as such but I believe he implodes sometimes and moves onto a new login (once Impersonating another poster as that is the kind of thing he does)

He is basically a looney - which is acceptable, unfortunately he is also a anti-Semitic/woman hating twat as well which (in my opinion) isn't.

You can try and reason with him (I tried a year or so ago) but it is pretty much impossible, however I wish you luck.

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) 42 min replaytime 61,038
Uwell Crown 3 Ⅲ Sub Ohm Tank | How do you... 2 hr newssnowss 1
News Sea ice cover at both poles at lowest point of ... 3 hr DonaldJTurnip 2
News N.J. to shift priorities from solar to gas (Feb '11) 8 hr One way or another 7
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 15 hr SoE 13,571
News Five natural ways to boost your erection and la... Wed oxfordx501 3
Remove DRM and Convert Audible AA Audiobooks to... (Feb '15) Wed JesseRR 6
More from around the web