Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#151006 Sep 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The definition of a word will change when there needs to be a new definition of a word.

Now that there seems to be a new need for the definition of universe physicists are developing one.

You don't think that language is ironclad and unvarying do you>
Nope the definition of one will also be what it is.

Those and thousands of more all define the Universe as it's alway been

Everything that is or postulated is the universes.

Look it up and Learn to use words correctly.
Mugwump

Consett, UK

#151007 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get so stupid as to copy and paste info from khan academy?
Wow, in all of science, khan academy is the Evo morons choice to explain the decay rate of radiation. Fruking morons.
Science doesn't want the kids to understand. Dumbing down the kids is what science is proving.
Out of interest, has HTS commented on your science yet ?- he DOES seem reluctant - maybe he is just another cut and paste moron.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151009 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get so stupid as to copy and paste info from khan academy?
Wow, in all of science, khan academy is the Evo morons choice to explain the decay rate of radiation. Fruking morons.
Science doesn't want the kids to understand. Dumbing down the kids is what science is proving.

Radiation does not have a decay rate.

Radiation does not "decay".

Even with only one functional neuron you should be able to understand that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151010 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone of you evo morons copy and paste some BS analogy from a five and dime website or you go along with what the other morons in your group claim. None of you offer an explanation as to how scientists figured out the decay rate and it seems by your Evo answers, the scientists don't want you or the kids being taught, to understand.

You are not capable of even understanding why spin does not affect gravity.

You have never offered anything of value here.

Is this your last chance to offer anything of value in your entire life?

Why are you blowing this opportunity?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151011 Sep 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of interest, has HTS commented on your science yet ?- he DOES seem reluctant - maybe he is just another cut and paste moron.

It is interesting that the DNA transcription involves "cutting and pasting" of of genetic material.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#151013 Sep 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of BS...
So you wouldn't subject a father to a pregnancy test for a $20,000 grant?
You wouldn't know BS even if you watched it hit the ground.
If Pfizer wants to do some weird study on male urine analysis, I won't stand in the way. I doubt that Exxon, Harvard or a museum of natural sciences is going to cough up dough for a test they know will be irrelevant, and if I was defending my reputation as a paleontologist (with hopes of future grants) I wouldn't hitch my name to bogus research - unless the grant came from AIG, since by that my reputation would be shot to Hell anyway.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151014 Sep 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope the definition of one will also be what it is.
Those and thousands of more all define the Universe as it's alway been
Everything that is or postulated is the universes.
Look it up and Learn to use words correctly.

The definition of universe is a moving target. Not that long ago it only included the milky way.

Now we have a poly dimensional multiverse, or so it would seem. Do we keep changing the definition to include more, or do we limit it to our own realm of existence? If we keep expanding the definition what do we call our "universe"?

When we went from milky way = universe to milky way = galaxy all we did is go to the Greek word for "milky"? The Greek word 'galaxias' literally means "milky".

What word do you suggest?

Cosmos?
macrocosm?


Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#151015 Sep 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So while flipping you have to ways it can work out, heads or tails, all about odds. In carbon 14 there is decay and ,,, nothing. There isn't a second random thing that can happen to delay the decay process.
right the process where C14 goes to N14 is an either or. There is no in between, there are no other possible states.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151017 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone of you evo morons copy and paste some BS analogy from a five and dime website or you go along with what the other morons in your group claim. None of you offer an explanation as to how scientists figured out the decay rate and it seems by your Evo answers, the scientists don't want you or the kids being taught, to understand.

i told you that radiation does not decay.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#151018 Sep 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Make mine Angels food cake. You can have the devils food cake.
The Devil is an Angel , doofus.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#151019 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.
Nuclear decay is just that, nuclear. It is not exposed to the elements. Chemical reactions take place in the electron shells of atoms, they are a totally different sort of reaction. So it does not take twice as long for a twice as much material to decay. The most important factor is the half life. If you have twice as many atoms you will have one more lifetime. Radioactive decay is plotted on log paper, not regular graph paper, it you want a straight line.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#151020 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone of you evo morons copy and paste some BS analogy from a five and dime website or you go along with what the other morons in your group claim. None of you offer an explanation as to how scientists figured out the decay rate and it seems by your Evo answers, the scientists don't want you or the kids being taught, to understand.
You have to know calculus to do the math.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#151021 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
In HTS's last 10 posts, show where HTS used religion as a crutch. All I've seen from HTS is science and logic.
You evos hide behind religion when you can't answer, just as you do now.
He makes it no secret >why< he lies, just as you make it no secret that you don't understand a jot or tittle about logic and science any more than he does.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#151022 Sep 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>The definition of universe is a moving target. Not that long ago it only included the milky way.

Now we have a poly dimensional multiverse, or so it would seem. Do we keep changing the definition to include more, or do we limit it to our own realm of existence? If we keep expanding the definition what do we call our "universe"?

When we went from milky way = universe to milky way = galaxy all we did is go to the Greek word for "milky"? The Greek word 'galaxias' literally means "milky".

What word do you suggest?

Cosmos?
macrocosm?
Ummmm no it the same as it was the only thing moving is it's increase in misuse of the word.

The correct other word would be multiverse.

These are current:

u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/
Noun
All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

u·ni·verse (yn-vûrs)
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx...

Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation:\ˈyü-nə-ˌvə rs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter ofuniversus entire, whole, from uni-+versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
Date: 14th century
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated :

http://i.word.com/idictionary/universe

universe[ yoo-nuh-vurs ]
noun
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/...
Definition of universein English
universe
Syllabification:(u·ni·verse)
Pronunciation:/ˈyo͞onəˌvə rs/
Translate universe | into French | into German |into Italian | into Spanish
noun
(the universe)
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/a...

universe science definition

Listen See in ThesaurusSee in a sentence
The totality of matter, energy, and space, including the Solar System, the galaxies, and the contents of the space between the galaxies. Current theories ofcosmology suggest that the universe is constantly expanding.

http://science.yourdictionary.com/

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#151023 Sep 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope the definition of one will also be what it is.
Those and thousands of more all define the Universe as it's alway been
Everything that is or postulated is the universes.
Look it up and Learn to use words correctly.
Changing your name has not increased your intelligence at all has it?

No, words change their meaning all of the time. They change depending upon where you live. A female British student can ask another student for a rubber and if he could knock her up in the morning. If a female student asked those sorts of questions in the U.S. her father would be very distraught.

The "correct way" to use a word is constantly changing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151024 Sep 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
If you and science can't answer why, then how did science prove such?
Can you get any dumber, this laughter just keeps getting better.

It was amusing to see you buffoning your way around here, but it has gotten stale. I feel sorry for you, on occasion, but mostly you are just a annoyance. Like tolerating a mosquito on a nice summer evening.

You are not so stupid as you try to pretend to be. But you are certainly close.
HTS

Williston, ND

#151026 Sep 9, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't know BS even if you watched it hit the ground.
If Pfizer wants to do some weird study on male urine analysis, I won't stand in the way. I doubt that Exxon, Harvard or a museum of natural sciences is going to cough up dough for a test they know will be irrelevant, and if I was defending my reputation as a paleontologist (with hopes of future grants) I wouldn't hitch my name to bogus research - unless the grant came from AIG, since by that my reputation would be shot to Hell anyway.
It's laughable to read th BS that you evo-morons fabricate to justify your stupid theory.
The T. rex bone had INTACT DNA, proven by immunohistochemistry.
They had visible histologic architecture, including haversion systems, blood vessels and collagen.

Carbon-14 dating is not some "weird analysis".
Cut the BS, ChromiuMan...
You know that the only reason Horner is refusing the grant is because he already knows it will produce evidence that will be hostile to evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151027 Sep 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to know calculus to do the math.

to understand decay, yes. But the actual decay is just probability and statistics.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#151029 Sep 9, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm no it the same as it was the only thing moving is it's increase in misuse of the word.
The correct other word would be multiverse.
These are current:
u·ni·verse
/ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/
Noun
All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
u·ni·verse (yn-vûrs)
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx...
Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation:\ˈyü-nə-ˌvə rs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter ofuniversus entire, whole, from uni-+versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
Date: 14th century
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated :
http://i.word.com/idictionary/universe
universe[ yoo-nuh-vurs ]
noun
1. the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/...
Definition of universein English
universe
Syllabification:(u·ni·verse)
Pronunciation:/ˈyo͞onəˌvə rs/
Translate universe | into French | into German |into Italian | into Spanish
noun
(the universe)
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/a...
universe science definition
Listen See in ThesaurusSee in a sentence
The totality of matter, energy, and space, including the Solar System, the galaxies, and the contents of the space between the galaxies. Current theories ofcosmology suggest that the universe is constantly expanding.
http://science.yourdictionary.com/

Dictionaries do not define usage of a word. They reflect how a word is used.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#151030 Sep 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>The Devil is an Angel , doofus.
Doofus?

First Lucifer is a fallen angel
This of course has NO bearing on cakes

What a Dolt.

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
We'll Find Alien Life in This Lifetime, Scienti... (May '14) 4 hr Julie 27
Santa Paws! How dressing your dog up for Christ... 6 hr Hooogle It 1
Why Japan has bet its revival on humanoid robots 11 hr Switches 25
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 15 hr shinningelectr0n 5,725
For all you have been given, what can you give ... 20 hr One way or another 21
How do I know if my crush likes me? (Jan '08) Tue sam031704 1,101
Jobs coming in Utica with potential impact on L... Tue Thick Bodied Utican 46
More from around the web