Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 7,406)

Showing posts 148,101 - 148,120 of168,508
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151941
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists are such mathematically incompetent bunglers. Selection reduces the diversity of populations by removing variants not fit enough to reproduce under the given selection conditions. Mutations increase the diversity of populations by creating new variants.

Moronic.

EVERYONE please read the above CAREFULLY!

LOL.

incompetent bungler.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151943
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please elucidate us how a scale can go to a feather in "8 mutations".
What a load of tripe!
Are you aware of the nucleotide sequences that code for a scale and a feather?

They are similar.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151944
Sep 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't recently "appear".
It was described only recently due to improvements in detection.

No, it is recent to humans. About 1931 or a little earlier. There seems to have been about 3 different infections of humans prior to 1959.

It is an old ERV, but not to homo sapiens.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151946
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
For your 3 myths?
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"

LOL.

Nice Straw-man fallacies!

Here are some more "myths" for you.

1. People get "infected" by things we can't see, feel,....

2. Matter is made up of tiny little things that are far to small to see even with the most powerful microscopes.

Want some more "myths" ?

Reality isn't interested in your myopia. Only in what EVIDENCE can be found.




“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151948
Sep 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. If the probability is p for a specific mutation, then doulbing the population will change the probability to 2p-p^2. This is slightly less than doubling, but for small probabilities, the difference is minute.

Hi Poly! Good to see you.

Save your typing. Reality does not phase this one.

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151951
Sep 13, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think is the origin of HIV? Do you think it evolved from another strain? It seems to have appeared rather recently in our history.
It is believed have came from wild chimps had been infected simultaneously with two different simian immunodeficiency "SIV" viruses which had "viral sex" to form a third we know as HIV.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151953
Sep 13, 2013
 
kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
What I have started to present is the probability function which describes the probabilities of one beneficial mutation occurring in a population and then I will present the joint probability function of two beneficial mutations occurring in a subpopulation. While you search in vain for my mathematical errors, I will be presenting the empirical evidence which substantiates this mathematics. You will find no empirical evidence which contradicts this mathematics. Now if evolutionists want to believe that 2+2=5 (which of course is true for very large values of 2), please don't let me disrupt your fantasy trip.
You are computing the wrong probabilities. Instead, you should be looking at expected times for the mutations to appear in the population and how quickly the mutation dies off or spreads in the population.

For the HIV situation you described, the individual mutations cannot spread in the population when the combined treatment is used. If one mutation appears, the treatment for the other still kills the virus. In this case, both mutations have to occur simultaneously, which gives the low probability you have been touting (essentially needed in to consider the product of the individual probabilities in some individual).

But, if a mutation can spread in the population, it will achieve an equilibrium level. In that case, the expected time for the second mutation to occur in the subpopulation that already has the first mutation is easily computed and, if the first is common in the population, is only slightly larger than the time to appear in the overall population.

In other words, the amount of time for both mutations to appear in some individual is slightly longer than the sum of the individual expected times (for this case). This is much, much less time that the time required for both mutations to appear simultaneously in an individual when the first mutation does not spread.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151956
Sep 13, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go again accusing someone of "lying for Jesus". I think that is the only thing you have to fall back on sometimes and is why you keep repeating it.
When a Christian continually lies I feel it is necessary to remind them that it is against their big Ten Commandments. There is no logical reason for them to be lying unless they think that Lying For Jesus will get them some extra favor. When it is made clear to them that is what they are doing it sometimes helps lessen the amount of lies.

I never accuse someone of Lying For Jesus that is not a Christian and is not Lying.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151957
Sep 13, 2013
 
replaytime, you did not seem to read my post very clearly. I just reread it and it was clear that I did not accuse anyone here of lying for Jesus. That was a reference to the false "peer reviewed" article found on sites like Answers in Genesis and Creatard.com .

Those are supposed to be Christian sites, yet it is difficult to find a single honest article at those sites. And so my answer stands. It is wrong to Lie for Jesus.

Oh, and you just posted from stupidity. I told you that I would remind you whenever you did that.

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151958
Sep 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When a Christian continually lies I feel it is necessary to remind them that it is against their big Ten Commandments. There is no logical reason for them to be lying unless they think that Lying For Jesus will get them some extra favor. When it is made clear to them that is what they are doing it sometimes helps lessen the amount of lies.
I never accuse someone of Lying For Jesus that is not a Christian and is not Lying.
But Jesus did not write the Ten Commandments, God did. Jesus gave his life so that we could be absolved from sin and enter into heaven. So shouldn't you be saying "lying for God"?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151959
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.

Nice Straw-man fallacies!

Here are some more "myths" for you.

1. People get "infected" by things we can't see, feel,....

2. Matter is made up of tiny little things that are far to small to see even with the most powerful microscopes.

Want some more "myths" ?

Reality isn't interested in your myopia. Only in what EVIDENCE can be found.
Give me proof of just one macro evolution event. Just one.

Evolution is a fact after all,?? there must be proof some where?? Right?? Oh and I am not talking about micro evolution where pre existing genes get turned on or off. Or Bactria mutates into a new species call Bactria or a Finch mutates into an all new species called a Finch.

I want a plant evolving into an plant eating animal of something like that.
You have billions of years and all life forms at your disposal just show some real proof.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151960
Sep 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there would be a minimal amount of C14 in them due to other sources than from the atmosphere. For example, a nitrogen atoms in the material can interact with local radioactivity and, in a very few cases, produce C14. This background level is well below the levels produced in the usual fashion and so the dating method works well for 50-100,000 years, depending on the process used. past that, the background becomes significant.
I disagree. Any C14 date over 50,000 years takes extreme caution in processing. C14 is best in the under 20,000 year range. There have been "ages" of 50,000 years that were purely from C14 created by various background means.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151961
Sep 13, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there would be a minimal amount of C14 in them due to other sources than from the atmosphere. For example, a nitrogen atoms in the material can interact with local radioactivity and, in a very few cases, produce C14. This background level is well below the levels produced in the usual fashion and so the dating method works well for 50-100,000 years, depending on the process used. past that, the background becomes significant.
NCSE gives a figure of 20,000 years or less to get an accurate reading using C-14.

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.

As Hurley points out:
Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.(p. 108)

There is a new method , but I'm not sure it works any different except it is non destructive.

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationis...

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151962
Sep 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
replaytime, you did not seem to read my post very clearly. I just reread it and it was clear that I did not accuse anyone here of lying for Jesus. That was a reference to the false "peer reviewed" article found on sites like Answers in Genesis and Creatard.com .
Those are supposed to be Christian sites, yet it is difficult to find a single honest article at those sites. And so my answer stands. It is wrong to Lie for Jesus.
Oh, and you just posted from stupidity. I told you that I would remind you whenever you did that.
"And once again if you don't believe us why don't you submit this to a peer reviewed journal. A real one, not one of the Christian circle jerk reviews where as long as "YOU" lie for Jesus and are not a total idiot they will publish "YOUR" work."

Now as you can see you directed that at kleinman telling them to submit their work and by using "you lie" and "your work".

Now if you would have said "A real one, not one of the Christian circle jerk reviews where as long as "SOMEONE" lies for Jesus and are not a total idiot they will publish "THEIR" work."

So you made the stupid post, nope make that two counting this one. So much for you reading from text. lol

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151963
Sep 13, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me proof of just one macro evolution event. Just one.
Evolution is a fact after all,?? there must be proof some where?? Right?? Oh and I am not talking about micro evolution where pre existing genes get turned on or off. Or Bactria mutates into a new species call Bactria or a Finch mutates into an all new species called a Finch.
I want a plant evolving into an plant eating animal of something like that.
You have billions of years and all life forms at your disposal just show some real proof.
Evolution is an observed fact, and has a theory to explain it. While evolutionary theory is debatable in it's mechanism and explanation, it's occurrence is beyond refute.
Like gravity , it to has a explanation, it's explanation is debatable, but it's occurrence is not. There is gravity, and evolution, two facts we cannot deny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151964
Sep 13, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me proof of just one macro evolution event. Just one.
Evolution is a fact after all,?? there must be proof some where?? Right?? Oh and I am not talking about micro evolution where pre existing genes get turned on or off. Or Bactria mutates into a new species call Bactria or a Finch mutates into an all new species called a Finch.
I want a plant evolving into an plant eating animal of something like that.
You have billions of years and all life forms at your disposal just show some real proof.

I am sure you are in line to be king when the squirrels rise up.

But till then we have:

1. The observed fact of evolution.
2. The Genomic record
3. Field observations and.
4.(last but not completely lest) the fossil record.

One of the difficulties of acquiescing to your request is the inherent ambiguity in it.

Where do you draw the line for "macro evolution"?

Years ago the battle was against evolution. Then against evolution above the species level..... Now Urb is up to Genus being the defining line.

Looks like it takes a LOT of microevolution to satisfy you.


Do you require references in support of my facts, or are they self evident?


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151965
Sep 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Any C14 date over 50,000 years takes extreme caution in processing. C14 is best in the under 20,000 year range. There have been "ages" of 50,000 years that were purely from C14 created by various background means.

Poly is referring, methinks, of a couple of studies that showed that with a large sample size and ideal conditions of preservation and conservation while avoiding contamination that it was possible to use C-14 out to 100k years or even a tad more.

Even if the samples are pristine only a few labs with the right equipment could do this test.

I can dig up a reference if you like.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151966
Sep 13, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
NCSE gives a figure of 20,000 years or less to get an accurate reading using C-14.
Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?
Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
As Hurley points out:
Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation.(p. 108)
There is a new method , but I'm not sure it works any different except it is non destructive.
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationis...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nu...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151967
Sep 13, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
"And once again if you don't believe us why don't you submit this to a peer reviewed journal. A real one, not one of the Christian circle jerk reviews where as long as "YOU" lie for Jesus and are not a total idiot they will publish "YOUR" work."
Now as you can see you directed that at kleinman telling them to submit their work and by using "you lie" and "your work".
Now if you would have said "A real one, not one of the Christian circle jerk reviews where as long as "SOMEONE" lies for Jesus and are not a total idiot they will publish "THEIR" work."
So you made the stupid post, nope make that two counting this one. So much for you reading from text. lol
Isn't that clear, even to you?

Creationist sites are notorious for lying. They have gone so far as to create their own false peer review. My post was a friendly warning about the kind of articles those sites publish. His work would also be for naught since no scientists take those sites seriously. I had not accused him of lying for Jesus, yet. Odds are I will since he has been corrected on one of his mistakes at least twice.

And now you have twice posted from stupidity.

This is nt

“Life is a learning highway”

Since: Mar 13

that too many get lost on

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151969
Sep 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that clear, even to you?
Creationist sites are notorious for lying. They have gone so far as to create their own false peer review. My post was a friendly warning about the kind of articles those sites publish. His work would also be for naught since no scientists take those sites seriously. I had not accused him of lying for Jesus, yet. Odds are I will since he has been corrected on one of his mistakes at least twice.
And now you have twice posted from stupidity.
This is nt
You are the one that is so picky with the words used, not me.

Definition of you (pron)

1.person being addressed: refers to the person or people being addressed or written to
2.person or people unspecified: refers to an unspecified person or people in general
3.those being referred to: used to refer to the person you are talking to, as well as other people of the same type or class

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 148,101 - 148,120 of168,508
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••