Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,800

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
One way or another

United States

#113004 Dec 30, 2012
The childish morons keep jerken each other off.
One way or another

United States

#113005 Dec 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not "other parts", its radiation of complexity from a base, a foundation. You are talking about the innermost basic parts of living anatomy, down to the metabolic cycle, the amino acids that happen to be "coded" and employed, the composition of cell walls, etc. Having reached a local optimum, there may have been no alternative that provided a better solution proceeding from existing forms.
Increasing complexity would then proceed, if advantageous, at higher level effects. But these would depend on a base, a foundation, that is stabilised. Plasticity at the lower level DECREASES as complexity at the higher level INCREASES.
As complexity increases at the top end, there is less opportunity for change at the bottom end that would not be wholly destructive.
As a simple analogy, in the earliest days of cars, the world could have agreed on a standard side of the road. Electric plugs and voltages could have been standardised too, without a lot of pain. But now it would be a gargantuan task and no modern economy wants to be the one that changes for the sake of the others...its too disadvantageous.
Evolution proceeds in small steps. In a simple proto-cell, the addition of a novel amino acid or changes to the metabolic cycle might cause a small difference in functioning. But as cellular and then organism complexity increased, the cascade effects of any change in the core processes would be too severe.
We might say, evolution has to proceed at the edges, and plasticity diminishes in the core systems over time. Most of the evolution of the last 400 million years has been little more than tinkering with already successful body plans.
Copy and paste your claim, according to science, because you show no evidence, moron.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113006 Dec 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, just to throw a dog among the kittens.
What assumptions does science make about the world in order to interpret it? Are you sufficiently skeptical of these assumptions?
For example, how would you go about justifying induction as a route to knowledge?
Science doesn't make assumptions, it dispels them. But I do verify the evidence I can when presented, find if there is other supporting evidence when I am unable to test is myself. You are assuming that your double standard is shared by skeptics, skeptics do not make excuses to one type of evidence, that's just religious people.
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#113007 Dec 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I have obviously found an area where Darwinism clearly departs from secular science because they don’t believe there is a genetic code. Even though it clearly is a code, that every biology text calls it a code, that every biology student is taught that it is a code, or that it is called a code simply because there is no other way to describe it, some very fundamental Darwinist refuse to recognize it as such. This is obvious perceived as a threat that there may indeed be intelligent design behind it all. Regardless of what they believe, it is still a code.
“Experiments have verified that the flow of information from gene to protein is based on a triplet code: The genetic instructions for a polypeptide chain are written in the DNA as series of nonoverlapping, three-nucleotide words.”
The DNA molecule is divided into base pair genes that are sequences of 4 non overlapping letters, A C G T, which start at 5’ and end at 3’(Stop/start signals). One side of the pair is transcripted into mRNA which obtains the template strand of the gene from 5’ to 3’ and is a mirror image of one side the DNA base pair template with the letter U substituted for the letter T. So for example, if one side of the DNA is [5’-TGGTTTGGCTCA-3’ is transcribed into mRNA as [5’-UGGUUUGGCUCA-3’] and then translated into the amino acid sequence (protein) as follows: UGG &#61664; Trp; UUU&#61664; Phe; GGC&#61664;Gly; and UCA&#61664;Ser.
The dictionary of the genetic code contains all the combinations of the 4 letters from the 5’ to the 3’ prime and define each of the possible amino acids. It is simply every 3 letter combination of the 4 letters and the amino acids they define. This genetic code is universal, shared by organisms from the simplest bacteria to the most complex plants and animals. You can even transcribe genes from one species to another! For example, the gene for yellow glow from a firefly was expressed in a tobacco plant so that the plant glowed; the florescent gene from a jellyfish was injected into a pig egg which developed a florescent pig.
“The evolutionary significance of the codes near universality is clear. A language shared by all living things must have been operating very early in the history of life-early enough to be present in the common ancestor of all present-day organisms. A shared genetic vocabulary is a reminder of the kinship that bonds all life on Earth.”
Or is it a reminder that there was one intelligent engineer that developed the code in the first place?
What makes more sense (And being objective and unbiased!):
An evolutionary view that eukaryotic life started some billion years ago with this same code and remain unchanged for a billion years while millions of diverse species of plants and animals evolved over these same billion years? Or that the code was developed and consistently re-used in the design of all the diverse species of plants and animals? The former is contradictory and the latter is analogous to all other intelligently designed things.
-Selected quoted text from Biology, Campbell 8th Ed.

"Code" =/= code.
Dogen

Indianapolis, IN

#113008 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Because ..... wait for it .... wait for it ... you don't know what you're talking about and therefore you are wrong.

If he only paid attention to what we told him (not even having to agree) he would do a much better job arguing. Fortunately he is neither that educated nor that smart.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113009 Dec 30, 2012
Human DNA has some 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides consisting of the 4 letters of the genetic code A, C, G, & T which are arranged in 3 letter groups which translate into the 20 amino acids.

Amino acids are grouped according to their ionic form, pH, and charge. They are nonpolar, polar, electrically charged, acidic and basic. Some are also hydrophilic and others hydrophobic. So each one is uniquely designed so that when the amino acid sequence is folded, it forms the 3D shape and binds and conforms according to the characteristics called for such as enzymatic, structural, storage, transport, hormonal, receptor, etc. In addition, there are a few which serve dual purposes as start or stop signals.

So again, the code consists of 4 letters grouped into 3 letter words that translate into the 20 amino acids. The number of words per gene can vary greatly but can be 10,000 or more. The number of genes in the human body is about 25,000 and the number of types of proteins is estimated at 2 million but its true value is not yet known. Because the 20 amino acids can be connected up arbitrarily, theoretically there are, for all practical purposes (20^50,000), an unlimited number of combinations to construct the millions of different types of proteins.

Now it is easy to lose sight of the scales involved but the human body has some 200 trillion cells, each of which contain DNA which contains 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides. But the derivation of all these base pairs (200 trillion x 3 billion) is boiled down to just the 4 bases and their arrangement into triplets and translation into proteins, which this whole system happens to be the same for all plant and animal species on Earth.

Just 4 bases is needed to define what you look like, your entire body, how to make a heart, a kidney, a lung, a brain, eyes, ears, arms and legs. It not only has to construct the correct protein for the job but also has to know where to put it (x,y,z), when to make it, how long it lives; every conceivable bit of information regarding its manufacturing specifications, transport, maintenance and repair.

All types of programs for example, you cut your finger. Initiate the blood clot cascade at location (x, y, z) for the specified duration without over or under clotting and simultaneously build some new proteins for repair of the cut but stop when finished, etc. Invading virus or bacteria, all hands on deck. These are the result of specialized proteins that were assembled with the same 4 bases.

These 4 letters, A, C, G, & T must also be responsible for inherited traits and innate behaviors in animals, for example, such as mating rituals and bird and fish migration abilities, insect social structures, beneficial symbiotic relationships between plants and animals, etc. The ability of a young bird to fly 5,000 miles across an ocean he’s never seen and arrive at the exact spot where his parents came from the year before must be programmed into the code with those same 4 letter triplets. So innate behaviors such as the navigation capabilities of a modern piloted airplane must lie coded into the genetic software.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113010 Dec 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Its not "other parts", its radiation of complexity from a base, a foundation. You are talking about the innermost basic parts of living anatomy, down to the metabolic cycle, the amino acids that happen to be "coded" and employed, the composition of cell walls, etc. Having reached a local optimum, there may have been no alternative that provided a better solution proceeding from existing forms.
There are numerous possible solutions. The code could have any number of letters and any number of word length. The words could have been variable length or overlapping. There are numerous possibilities. But no other plan was used anywhere.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113011 Dec 30, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Life can only evolve to the limits of the physicals and chemistry. Unless you know of a better system then that limit was reached for dna billions of years ago. It hasn't changed because no more beneficial changes are possible (at least not by the small steps evolution demands).
Dna and Atp work fine so there's no reason for any alternative system to evolve. Natural selection prevents them from deteriorating.
So what you are saying is that "nature" superbly optimized the genetic code first, out of millions of possible solutions, and then set about screwing up everything else for a billion years, yes?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113012 Dec 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Human DNA has some 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides consisting of the 4 letters of the genetic code A, C, G, & T which are arranged in 3 letter groups which translate into the 20 amino acids.
.....
Cropped for space. But wow, you REALLY don't know biology at all. Not to mention how 3D algorithms work. You also missed a TON of chemistry.

"Initiate the blood clot cascade at location (x, y, z)" seriously? There is a chemical in the plasma, which is the result of chemicals that result from the reactions of DNA. When the plasma dries, the clotting agent reacts to the oxygen creating a new chemical that's larger and more solid than the original. There is no "initiate clotting" garbage, clotting is a trait of our blood, not a response to anything.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113013 Dec 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that "nature" superbly optimized the genetic code first, out of millions of possible solutions, and then set about screwing up everything else for a billion years, yes?
Vestigial organs say otherwise.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#113014 Dec 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that "nature" superbly optimized the genetic code first, out of millions of possible solutions, and then set about screwing up everything else for a billion years, yes?
How'd it get there? How'd it get there?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Bury, UK

#113015 Dec 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not "other parts", its radiation of complexity from a base, a foundation. You are talking about the innermost basic parts of living anatomy, down to the metabolic cycle, the amino acids that happen to be "coded" and employed, the composition of cell walls, etc. Having reached a local optimum, there may have been no alternative that provided a better solution proceeding from existing forms.
Increasing complexity would then proceed, if advantageous, at higher level effects. But these would depend on a base, a foundation, that is stabilised. Plasticity at the lower level DECREASES as complexity at the higher level INCREASES.
As complexity increases at the top end, there is less opportunity for change at the bottom end that would not be wholly destructive.
As a simple analogy, in the earliest days of cars, the world could have agreed on a standard side of the road. Electric plugs and voltages could have been standardised too, without a lot of pain. But now it would be a gargantuan task and no modern economy wants to be the one that changes for the sake of the others...its too disadvantageous.
Evolution proceeds in small steps. In a simple proto-cell, the addition of a novel amino acid or changes to the metabolic cycle might cause a small difference in functioning. But as cellular and then organism complexity increased, the cascade effects of any change in the core processes would be too severe.
We might say, evolution has to proceed at the edges, and plasticity diminishes in the core systems over time. Most of the evolution of the last 400 million years has been little more than tinkering with already successful body plans.
Most evolutionists believe that God created living beings only that time evolves their creation down the ages.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113016 Dec 30, 2012
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
Most evolutionists believe that God created living beings only that time evolves their creation down the ages.
English, M-Fer, do you speak it?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Bury, UK

#113017 Dec 30, 2012
And that i took a grand gesture by the Gods in the first place to "get the ball going" as it were in the first place then nature kicks in and takes over.

Evolutionary theory is lousy of "created modulations" lets not pretend otherwise. But the whole point nature being a non thinking animal, and evolution being semi-robotic in origin as evolutionary automata.

A lot of religious communities have realised the benefits of evolution in their thinking methods:-

It is my belief that we Carthar Jews were once magnificent dragons in which we evolutionary regress through time as man, bull, then worms.

Though i know God created dragons
God created man
God created bulls
God created worms

I also see evolutionary regression overall.

- And that i think it long overtime that scientist saw more symbiosis between science and religion.

Like and acceptance that they both coexist in reality of fact. And that religion and science withhold many truths they do not share in common.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113018 Dec 30, 2012
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Copy and paste your claim, according to science, because you show no evidence, moron.
I cannot copy and paste it, Moron, because there is no source. I am thinking about the actual consequences of evolution, using my BRAIN, and offering my conclusions. Its a deduction of the consequences of evolving complexity.

Feel free to argue and discuss the actual substance of my argument, if you can. But then, we all know you are incapable of that.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Bury, UK

#113019 Dec 30, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Code" =/= code.
Its a code until someone breaks it - consider the genome project here.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#113020 Dec 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that "nature" superbly optimized the genetic code first, out of millions of possible solutions, and then set about screwing up everything else for a billion years, yes?
I would give that better odds, than a being or force that cannot be observed or known did it with magical powers the nature of which cannot be observed or known. Where has design science taken us, except down the road to religion?

What you say boils down to belief. Just because it looks designed, you have to have a designer to feel comfortable that you are not the result of observable natural phenomena.

We are on the path to get the real answers that you are giving up to an alledged designer. In the end, with every piece of new knowledge, you will still be able to worship as you choose.

See ya.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113021 Dec 30, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't make assumptions, it dispels them. But I do verify the evidence I can when presented, find if there is other supporting evidence when I am unable to test is myself. You are assuming that your double standard is shared by skeptics, skeptics do not make excuses to one type of evidence, that's just religious people.
Perhaps you need to look a little more closely.

Science makes the assumption that induction (making generalisations from particulars)is a useful way to learn about how the universe works. There is no way this assumption can be logically supported. All we can say it, it seems to have worked until now.

Science also assumes that what has been observationally consistent in the past will be so in the future.

Scientific realists assume there is a real, objective world out there that we can actually understand. Scientific non-realists think that our models are never more than representations of something intrinsically unknowable, and that the little "maps" or models we build can not be the territory itself. At best they can provide partial predictions about an ultimately unknowable universe.

These might sound like philosophical musings but they do have a practical and real dimension. It is one of the chief failings of humans, including scientists, to be too quick to theorise the general from the particular. Sometimes the errors of prediction that this causes can have large consequences. Two classic examples are the Iraq war (they will love democracy, it will be over in months!) to the financial crash of 2007-8, events that took the USA from high confidence to low in less than a decade.

On the plus side, most physicists in 1880 thought the field was just about complete, and the tiny anomalies that they found would be sorted out with a tweak or two. Then - relativity and quantum mechanics revolutionised not only physics but the whole way in which we think about time, space, and more deeply, the notion of causality itself.

I have no double standard here. I am a great fan of science as you should know by now. To paraphrase Churchill, its the worst way to know anything except for all the others. But we must remember our own limits and assumptions, and not pretend they do not exist.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113022 Dec 30, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you need to look a little more closely.
Science makes the assumption that induction (making generalisations from particulars)is a useful way to learn about how the universe works. There is no way this assumption can be logically supported. All we can say it, it seems to have worked until now.
Science also assumes that what has been observationally consistent in the past will be so in the future.
Scientific realists assume there is a real, objective world out there that we can actually understand. Scientific non-realists think that our models are never more than representations of something intrinsically unknowable, and that the little "maps" or models we build can not be the territory itself. At best they can provide partial predictions about an ultimately unknowable universe.
These might sound like philosophical musings but they do have a practical and real dimension. It is one of the chief failings of humans, including scientists, to be too quick to theorise the general from the particular. Sometimes the errors of prediction that this causes can have large consequences. Two classic examples are the Iraq war (they will love democracy, it will be over in months!) to the financial crash of 2007-8, events that took the USA from high confidence to low in less than a decade.
On the plus side, most physicists in 1880 thought the field was just about complete, and the tiny anomalies that they found would be sorted out with a tweak or two. Then - relativity and quantum mechanics revolutionised not only physics but the whole way in which we think about time, space, and more deeply, the notion of causality itself.
I have no double standard here. I am a great fan of science as you should know by now. To paraphrase Churchill, its the worst way to know anything except for all the others. But we must remember our own limits and assumptions, and not pretend they do not exist.
So ... you don't think all those christian scientists are scientists?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113023 Dec 30, 2012
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
Most evolutionists believe that God created living beings only that time evolves their creation down the ages.
Whatever they think, the point is that the theory of evolution makes such "beliefs" unnecessary. The theory first posited by Darwin is an alternative to the notion that "Goddidit by Design". It shows how the simplest can evolve to the most complex by a natural method.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min DanFromSmithville 16,625
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 149,298
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 34 min Iconoclast 1 597
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 44 min EXPERT 140,942
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 3 hr Meman 4
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 3 hr paul porter 1
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web