Do schools still teach evolution?

[PickleballAce]

Ahhh backwards Americans.

wot the fuk did u just say 2 me m8? i dropped out of newcastle primary skool i'm the sickest bloke ull eva meet & ive nicked 300 double deckers from tha corner shop. im trained in street fitin’ & im the strongest fukker in tha entire 'castle gym. yer nuthin to me but a cheeky lil dick'ed wi' a hot mum & fake bling. ill waste u and smash a fukin bottle oer yer hed bruv, i swer 2 christ. ya think u can fokin run ya gabber at me whilst sittin on yer arse behind a lil screen? think again wanka. im callin me bruvs rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble thatll make ur nan sore jus hearin about it. yer a waste bruv. my bruvs be all over tha place & ill beat ya to a proper fukin pulp with me fists wanka. if i aint satisfied w/ that ill borrow me m8s cricket bat & see if that gets u the fuk out o’ newcastle ya daft kunt. if ye had seen this bloody fukin mess commin ye might a’ kept ya gabber from runnin. but it seems yer a stewpid lil twat, innit? ima shite fury & ull drown in it m8. ur in proper mess ya knobhead.


[Infracted]

[Pengalor]

This is true, but I also feel like it's important to highlight that you cannot outgrow your ancestry and it strictly is forbidden by evolution. This is why we don't expect to find a crocoduck ever.

Who knows, could happen after one helluva night.

[Jakexe]

We still teach kids how to ride bikes and we don't know how they work either, guess we should stop till we have it worked out 100% even when we have the basic principles and understanding to work with it.

I could science the answer up but others have done that job, so analogy it is.

[Deleted]

We still teach kids how to ride bikes and we don't know how they work either, guess we should stop till we have it worked out 100% even when we have the basic principles and understanding to work with it.

I could science the answer up but others have done that job, so analogy it is.

Eh wat. I know how bike works.

[An-Tuirseach]

Not in Kansas.

Was when I was growing up, and according to my sister they're still learning it as well.

[crunk]

theres holes in the theory of plate tectonics, and gravitational theory. but i guess a wizard does those things too.

[Jibjabb]

It is still taught in schools as if it were factual science, because it is factual science, or at least as close to factual science as other things we teach are, like atomic/subatomic 'theory'.

Your list of 'flaws' in the theory of evolution is odd. Natural Selection is not a flaw in the theory, it's the mechanism by which evolution occurs. Missing links just mean that we haven't found evidence for every form of life to have existed yet. We're getting there, if we'd found it all we wouldn't be digging any more, it's not evidence against. Fraudulent fossils are just proof of the desperation of some researchers to make a name for themselves via a big discovery in a field where that's the only real way to be judged as successful, they're not evidence against evolution either. DNA is how genetic information is stored, and random mutations therein are how natural selection occurs in the first place, again it's not even close to evidence against, it's actually a part of the theory just like natural selection.

I dunno, your whole post feels like 'bait' to me, but have the benefit of the doubt - there's an honest answer. Evolution is still taught because there's really no good reason that it shouldn't be.

Natural selection is the forming (or loss) of traits to better adapt to their environment. According to natural selection creatures would pass on adaptive traits over time but there are cases where the traits being passed dont quite add up such as the case with birds. Evolutionists claimed that flightless birds eventually grew wings over time and began to fly but why would passing on useless wings be an adaptive trait the bird needed, as the wings would not do anything for the next million generation of birds as they wouldnt be able to fly with them until much later, it would seem that having useless wings would actually put the birds at a disadvantage to non winged flightless birds meanign that natural selection would have gotten rid of the wings.

Theres also the case of the Coelacanth fish which was thought to have eventually formed lungs and feet as it was over 350 million years old. Yet this exact fish was found in our century and it had no differences whatsoever from the fossils from millions of years ago, why is this? Should it not have formed new traits over that amount of time period?

Missing links are more because Darwin himself admitted that these missing links would have to be found in order to PROVE his theory of evolution. It has been well over a century and none have been found, yet evolution is still taught as fact? Why when every single missing link has later been proven to be a fraud?

DNA is brought up because it has been proven that DNA does not changed based on external circumstances. Regardless of environment the DNA remains the same.

Theres also the fact that evolution theory seems to be based entirely on a chance premesis, meaning that over time if given enough chances change will occur to single cells. It states that organic life can come from inorganic material yet this also has never been seen or reproduced by anyone ever, what reason is there to believe it?

Its just too much that feels unexplained or left open to chance to actually by into. Its why I dont understand why its taught and even regarded by many people as factual

[blaqkmagick]

This is why we don't expect to find a crocoduck ever.

I had never heard of this crocoduck thing. Just looked it up and gave myself an audible facepalm. Some people.

[Yvaelle]

wot the fuk did u just say 2 me m8? i dropped out of newcastle primary skool i'm the sickest bloke ull eva meet & ive nicked 300 double deckers from tha corner shop. im trained in street fitin’ & im the strongest fukker in tha entire 'castle gym. yer nuthin to me but a cheeky lil dick'ed wi' a hot mum & fake bling. ill waste u and smash a fukin bottle oer yer hed bruv, i swer 2 christ. ya think u can fokin run ya gabber at me whilst sittin on yer arse behind a lil screen? think again wanka. im callin me bruvs rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble thatll make ur nan sore jus hearin about it. yer a waste bruv. my bruvs be all over tha place & ill beat ya to a proper fukin pulp with me fists wanka. if i aint satisfied w/ that ill borrow me m8s cricket bat & see if that gets u the fuk out o’ newcastle ya daft kunt. if ye had seen this bloody fukin mess commin ye might a’ kept ya gabber from runnin. but it seems yer a stewpid lil twat, innit? ima shite fury & ull drown in it m8. ur in proper mess ya knobhead.

Wow! Do you write for Games Workshop? I've never seen such a good impression of an Ork.

[PACOX]

Eh, to add. i've learned biology in a secular and religious school. Learned about evolution in both. I actually learned more about evolution in the religious school, definitely learned more about taxonomy. The only difference was that the world 'God' was used a couple of times, but evolution was never denied. Sort of shows how short minded creationist can be if religious textbooks can accept evolution.

I also learned more about atomic theory at my private school...

I tend to think the creationism vs evolution battle is largely perpetuated by the internet and politicians pandering for votes since many religious sects do not even deny evolution.

[prwraith]

Natural selection is the forming (or loss) of traits to better adapt to their environment. According to natural selection creatures would pass on adaptive traits over time but there are cases where the traits being passed dont quite add up such as the case with birds. Evolutionists claimed that flightless birds eventually grew wings over time and began to fly but why would passing on useless wings be an adaptive trait the bird needed, as the wings would not do anything for the next million generation of birds as they wouldnt be able to fly with them until much later, it would seem that having useless wings would actually put the birds at a disadvantage to non winged flightless birds meanign that natural selection would have gotten rid of the wings.

Theres also the case of the Coelacanth fish which was thought to have eventually formed lungs and feet as it was over 350 million years old. Yet this exact fish was found in our century and it had no differences whatsoever from the fossils from millions of years ago, why is this? Should it not have formed new traits over that amount of time period?

Missing links are more because Darwin himself admitted that these missing links would have to be found in order to PROVE his theory of evolution. It has been well over a century and none have been found, yet evolution is still taught as fact? Why when every single missing link has later been proven to be a fraud?

DNA is brought up because it has been proven that DNA does not changed based on external circumstances. Regardless of environment the DNA remains the same.

Theres also the fact that evolution theory seems to be based entirely on a chance premesis, meaning that over time if given enough chances change will occur to single cells. It states that organic life can come from inorganic material yet this also has never been seen or reproduced by anyone ever, what reason is there to believe it?

Its just too much that feels unexplained or left open to chance to actually by into. Its why I dont understand why its taught and even regarded by many people as factual

What would you teach instead? Simply because we don't have a complete understanding doesn't mean it isn't worth teaching. It sure as hell is better thing to teach than aliens did it or Jesus did it.

And just because something is millions of years old doesn't necessarily mean it needs to evolve.

[Dakara]

Mine did... but that was back in the 90's. It was a "Christian" School aswell... go figure.

[Jakexe]

Eh wat. I know how bike works.

The science needs you today!

Seriously, bikes are fucking complex, unless i'm mistaken and I very well could be, we haven't yet discovered just why bikes stay upright in motion.

[Donald Hellscream]

Yes all the way from everything started as a single-cell organisms in the water to now we are at the top of the food chain because we have invented the means to kill everything else.

[Jibjabb]

What would you teach instead? Simply because we don't have a complete understanding doesn't mean it isn't worth teaching. It sure as hell is better thing to teach than aliens did it or Jesus did it.

And just because something is millions of years old doesn't necessarily mean it needs to evolve.

I dont think schools should teach religion. Id rather them either leave it unknown or teach it for what it is. A theory. Explain the point of view from both sides if you have to, giving cases for and against while letting the child decide whether or not they wish to regard it as fact

[Tzalix]

Natural selection is the forming (or loss) of traits to better adapt to their environment. According to natural selection creatures would pass on adaptive traits over time but there are cases where the traits being passed dont quite add up such as the case with birds. Evolutionists claimed that flightless birds eventually grew wings over time and began to fly but why would passing on useless wings be an adaptive trait the bird needed, as the wings would not do anything for the next million generation of birds as they wouldnt be able to fly with them until much later, it would seem that having useless wings would actually put the birds at a disadvantage to non winged flightless birds meanign that natural selection would have gotten rid of the wings.

Theres also the case of the Coelacanth fish which was thought to have eventually formed lungs and feet as it was over 350 million years old. Yet this exact fish was found in our century and it had no differences whatsoever from the fossils from millions of years ago, why is this? Should it not have formed new traits over that amount of time period?

Missing links are more because Darwin himself admitted that these missing links would have to be found in order to PROVE his theory of evolution. It has been well over a century and none have been found, yet evolution is still taught as fact? Why when every single missing link has later been proven to be a fraud?

DNA is brought up because it has been proven that DNA does not changed based on external circumstances. Regardless of environment the DNA remains the same.

Theres also the fact that evolution theory seems to be based entirely on a chance premesis, meaning that over time if given enough chances change will occur to single cells. It states that organic life can come from inorganic material yet this also has never been seen or reproduced by anyone ever, what reason is there to believe it?

Its just too much that feels unexplained or left open to chance to actually by into. Its why I dont understand why its taught and even regarded by many people as factual

Natural selection does not demand that change must occur. "Useless" traits can remain for millions of year because it is, as you yourself stated, a game of chance.

Also, evolution does not state that organic life can come from inorganic material. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, but the changes, the evolutions of life.

I dont think schools should teach religion. Id rather them either leave it unknown or teach it for what it is. A theory. Explain the point of view from both sides if you have to, giving cases for and against while letting the child decide whether or not they wish to regard it as fact

The universe being created by a divine being is a hypothesis with very little foundation in reality, seeing as it breaks pretty much every law of nature as we know it.

Evolution is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

They should not be taught as being equal because they are not.

[SoundOfGuns]

DNA is brought up because it has been proven that DNA does not changed based on external circumstances. Regardless of environment the DNA remains the same.

Uh... what? Now you are flat-out lying here. Actually THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE has been proven on multiple experiments with identical twins which's lifestyles were strongly different from one-another, even if it just had been on minor levels, and it would till affect the genes that would be passed on...

Further, the fact some animals did not change or evolve does not mean anything. Nature is not exactly like we are. You know? Buying a fucking iPhone every time one is released so we get something additional that may be better but we don't need in the slightest? Some creatures don't have a use for some things we consider useful for some others. If a creature lives well with what it has, there is no reason for a change. The only important detail is; Can we survive? How well? Are we able to pass our Genes on? If all these is answered positively, the DNA won't change since it's all that actually matters for evolution as far as we know, while the wizard is busy buying the next iPhone, and actually only changes on a big level when there is really a need that is "double-checked" by multiple examples of the same species having a similar change in their genes to support one another's "claims" that something has to be done differently in order to keep existing.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

DNA is brought up because it has been proven that DNA does not changed based on external circumstances. Regardless of environment the DNA remains the same.

I'd like you to back this statement up with some evidence.

[Payday]

The science needs you today!

Seriously, bikes are fucking complex, unless i'm mistaken and I very well could be, we haven't yet discovered just why bikes stay upright in motion.

Yes, you're mistaken.

[glo]

I dont think schools should teach religion. Id rather them either leave it unknown or teach it for what it is. A theory. Explain the point of view from both sides if you have to, giving cases for and against while letting the child decide whether or not they wish to regard it as fact

Evolution has mountains of evidence behind it (even if it isn't "proven" to your standards), religion has absolutely no evidence.