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 4,842)

Showing posts 96,821 - 96,840 of168,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99075
Aug 13, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lazy uh? Care to list your degrees and certificates? I got you beat by a mile.
MBA? Seriously?

Since: Aug 07

Sanford, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99076
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is more likely to occur within small isolated populations. Any formula that does not take into account mass decimations and isolations is missing critical data.
Small populations mean fewer generations and fewer mutations means the basic mechanism for macroevolution is missing. So you're screwed either way.

Since: Aug 07

Sanford, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99077
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, nobody can make up degrees and certificates like UC can.
And just what have I made up numbnuts?

Since: Aug 07

Sanford, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99078
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
MBA? Seriously?
What's your problem? You think it easy? Try it wise guy.
Psychology

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99079
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Uh, it seems you made another friend. Dogen meet sub d.

Your friends are back sub d.

Psychology | 5 min ago
Your little friend mikey wanted me to remind everyone, so I'll be reminding you quite often.

Psychology | 1 hr ago
More of subductions wisdom follows.

Psychology wrote:
Why does the earth spin, is it because it makes the earth happy? Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

Subduction says,---
No, the Earth spins because objects orbiting farther away from the Sun have a different velocity than objects orbiting nearer the Sun.

Psychology says, oooooh, so that's why the earth spins, because for all but a moron, that was the question.

Frikken genius I tell ya---hahahahahahaha
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99080
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not supply anything to rebut. All it takes to dismiss your unsupported idiocy is to point out that you did not support your claim. I am more than happy to supply links about ERV's, but you don't want to look at the evidence, don't you.
You have a long way to go to learn about the rules of debate. Claims by you, or by me, have to be supportable. I am more than willing to support my claims. You have not done so even once. And please, don't try to count your quote mine as supporting a claim, that quote mine was pointed out by another member.
   Failed junk DNA paradigm: University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 

*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81

Other. Well known evolutionists including Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins made similar false statements.

In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,

"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

*, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30

In 2010, Famed geneticist [evolutionist] Dr. Francis Collins, director of NIH, wrote:

"Discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more 'junk  DNA,' think again"

*Collins, Francis S., The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine,, pp. 5–6

There are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals that document scientific proof of thousands of functions of so called ERV's. If you're seriously interested, I will find references and post them for you. I'm not going to bother if you're planning on simply dismissing my arguments without logic, as you have done in the past.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99081
Aug 13, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what have I made up numbnuts?
Please, do you really need a list? I tell you what, try to go the rest of the day without lying and I will start making a list for you.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99082
Aug 13, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
   Failed junk DNA paradigm: University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
*Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Other. Well known evolutionists including Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins made similar false statements.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
In 2010, Famed geneticist [evolutionist] Dr. Francis Collins, director of NIH, wrote:
"Discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more 'junk  DNA,' think again"
*Collins, Francis S., The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine,, pp. 5–6
There are peer reviewed articles in scientific journals that document scientific proof of thousands of functions of so called ERV's. If you're seriously interested, I will find references and post them for you. I'm not going to bother if you're planning on simply dismissing my arguments without logic, as you have done in the past.
That is closer to a proper answer. The problem is that you did not provide a link. That is only one scientist and I have not had a check to see if he did any peer reviewed work on this yet. Publishing in creationist journals does not count as "peer review" by the way.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99083
Aug 13, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>microbes to man is not a scientifically accepted theory, regardless of the cheap propaganda peddled by atheist zealots.

Sorry, but it is. Actually it is hailed by many (theist and atheist alike) as being one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientific theory of all time and a trump of the scientific method.

It is a model for all future scientific theories to follow. Truly an apex scientific theory and proof as to what reason can do when unhindered by superstition and a priori belief systems.

Over 40% of all biologist are theists, btw. And the theory of evolution is accepted (if grudgingly so) by most main stream churches including Catholics and Baptist (except southern).

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99084
Aug 13, 2012
 
Psychology wrote:
Subduction says,---
No, the Earth spins because objects orbiting farther away from the Sun have a different velocity than objects orbiting nearer the Sun.
Psychology says, oooooh, so that's why the earth spins, because for all but a moron, that was the question.
Frikken genius I tell ya---hahahahahahaha
...well, SURE...it's no "tack strips are the reason your kitty pisses on your bed".

And in fact, SubD is absolutely correct.

If you had one iota of science knowledge, you could figure that one out.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99085
Aug 13, 2012
 
Oops, I read more of your post HTS and I found that you made the mistake that I told you not to make. You conflated ERV's with "junk DNA". ERV's are not junk DNA, so this article that may debunk the idea of junk DNA seems to have nothing to do with ERV's. Nice try. But not good enough.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99086
Aug 13, 2012
 
The more I look at the work of Dr. Jerry Coyne the more confused I am that HTS used him as a reference. He is a evolutionist and has debunked creationism and ID. He may have disagreed with others about junk DNA, but I don't see him debunking ERV's anywhere.

Nope, it looks like HTS just fell into the mistake I warned him not to make.

Just when this was looking interesting.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99087
Aug 13, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is closer to a proper answer. The problem is that you did not provide a link. That is only one scientist and I have not had a check to see if he did any peer reviewed work on this yet. Publishing in creationist journals does not count as "peer review" by the way.
So you are categorically excluding all research that is not produced by atheists stooges...
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99088
Aug 13, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
The more I look at the work of Dr. Jerry Coyne the more confused I am that HTS used him as a reference. He is a evolutionist and has debunked creationism and ID. He may have disagreed with others about junk DNA, but I don't see him debunking ERV's anywhere.
Nope, it looks like HTS just fell into the mistake I warned him not to make.
Just when this was looking interesting.
Did you read the quote? He was agreeing with the conventional evolutionist wisdom of evolutionary theorists. I quoted him to point out his erroneous conclusions.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99089
Aug 13, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oops, I read more of your post HTS and I found that you made the mistake that I told you not to make. You conflated ERV's with "junk DNA". ERV's are not junk DNA, so this article that may debunk the idea of junk DNA seems to have nothing to do with ERV's. Nice try. But not good enough.
Yes ERV's a part of junk DNA... And that hypothesis has collapsed.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99091
Aug 13, 2012
 
And back to work for a while.

Let me know if HTS comes up with anything substantial.
Psychology

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99092
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes ERV's a part of junk DNA... And that hypothesis has collapsed.
Still don't get it, do you? That's ok, neither does UC and he's been here a long time.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99093
Aug 13, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So you are categorically excluding all research that is not produced by atheists stooges...
Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.
Mugwump

York, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99094
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just take the y, x, data points and put it on an Excel spreadsheet and use the Fit Growth function to produce a formula and predict past and future data points. Pretty easy. It's easy to see evolution is impossible to imagine given real, historic data.
Okay - done that -(have used the growth(Known Y's,[Known X's],[New X's],[Const]) function (think you need to ensure the analysis add-on is installed - This Excel 2010)
A few observations
a) from -10,000 BC to 1500 AD (*****11,150 years******) the % growth per decade is ~1-2%
b) This then Increases from 5% to 22% rapidly from 1800 to 1999 (****199****** years)(look-up Industrial / Agricultural revolution)
c) The growth function seems to not that closely predict actual population rates as seen in the real data
e.g.
AD 500 - gives 299Million compared to 190Mill (from raw data)
AD 1999 - gives 770M compared to 6Billion
BC 10,000 -> BC 1000 - is >100% out for each of the data-points
Now a few questions
Given the above - does your approach of Ignoring fluctuating growth rates seem to produce a good fit?
Since your own approach seems to show a population of 731 - in 20,000 BC - doesn't this either
a) prove there is something wrong with your simplistic formula
b) illustrate that the whole YEC account (and indeed the biblical account)- is now proved wrong - using REAL WORLD OBSERVED DATA
NOTE : you cant say No to A) without saying Yes to B)
**********
Note for others - I am well aware that mucking about with numbers from some 10K years is NOT enough to even attempt to model population over millions of years - am just trying to illustrate this point to UC
**********

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99095
Aug 13, 2012
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your problem? You think it easy? Try it wise guy.
MBA has always been considered a joke degree.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 96,821 - 96,840 of168,533
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••