Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

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."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115842 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...

This is what you believe because you look at believers through rose colored glasses. The fact that we have to deal with is that acknowledged atheists are, on average, better people than we are. They are more honest and less hypocritical. They value humans beings regardless of their belief system.

If you want to see truly caring and moral people take a good hard look at the Buddhists. They do more to help people than any other religion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115843 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Cowboys Rule of Non-Macroevolution:
"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted to within their own defined species (and only extremely rarely genus), regardless of generation or time, and with no known present or historic significant exception."

Since this is already known to be untrue I guess there is no point in refuting it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115844 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're imaging the impossible... that a parasite that can't reproduce infects a host so that the host will eventually be ale to reproduce.

Your response does not make any sense.

Maybe if you reword it.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115845 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you come to that preposterous synopsis?
A virus reproduces by taking over a cell, hijacking the DNA of the cell, causing it to reproduce viruses until the cell ruptures.
Sometimes cells with the help of antibodies are able to fight off the infection, but have disrupted DNA as a lingering effect of the battle.
If this cell is a germ cell, the disrupted DNA will be passed on to the children of the organism.
I thought you claimed to be a physician .... a pretty darned poor one if you didn't get this information before.
I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115846 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response does not make any sense.
Maybe if you reword it.
ERS's have been proven to have functionality. One, for example, is vital for the proper function of the placenta. The proposal that these segments of genetic code were worthless segments resultant from past parasitic infections requires the conclusion that an ancient mammal was infected by a virus and thereafter acquired the capacity to reproduce.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115847 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.
No ERV ever infected an ancient mammal and gave it an ability to reproduce that it never had before. That on it surface is ridiculous.

I suppose it never occurred to you that you might have misunderstood something if what you heard was that ridiculous.

'course not!

The ERV remnants are markers passed on to descendents of a previously infected animal. These markers are present in all the descendants of such an animal, even those thousands of years later that have evolved into something completely different. This is why and how we share some of these identical markers with apes and chimpanzees.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115848 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERS's have been proven to have functionality. One, for example, is vital for the proper function of the placenta. The proposal that these segments of genetic code were worthless segments resultant from past parasitic infections requires the conclusion that an ancient mammal was infected by a virus and thereafter acquired the capacity to reproduce.
So that's where it came from. You made it up. That's why it is so ridiculous.

Yes, an ERV remnant might actually produce a mutation in the offspring. If that mutation is advantageous as in providing a better functioning placenta, then that line of descendants flourishes more than the others and becomes "more fit" for survival. But more often, mutations are benign or malicious, in which cases they make no difference or cause that line of descendants to die out. But it only has to happen often enough to give some descendants a better chance at surviving long enough to reproduce for evolution to occur and ERV's might well be a "change agent" in that regard.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115849 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.
Sorry where does it say that ERVs have anything to do with the above nonsense about a virus allowing a host to start replicating - are you nuts.

Want to back up this claim , may as well as you never backed up your lie about the majority of physicians rejecting evolution - one lie can be a mistake , 2 is a habit.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115850 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's where it came from. You made it up. That's why it is so ridiculous.
Yes, an ERV remnant might actually produce a mutation in the offspring. If that mutation is advantageous as in providing a better functioning placenta, then that line of descendants flourishes more than the others and becomes "more fit" for survival. But more often, mutations are benign or malicious, in which cases they make no difference or cause that line of descendants to die out. But it only has to happen often enough to give some descendants a better chance at surviving long enough to reproduce for evolution to occur and ERV's might well be a "change agent" in that regard.
Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115851 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.

Apparently you are very uneducated as to ERVs. We have replicated ERV insertions in experimental studies.

This is actually just as "proven" as science ever gets.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115852 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
No ERV ever infected an ancient mammal and gave it an ability to reproduce that it never had before. That on it surface is ridiculous.
I suppose it never occurred to you that you might have misunderstood something if what you heard was that ridiculous.
'course not!
The ERV remnants are markers passed on to descendents of a previously infected animal. These markers are present in all the descendants of such an animal, even those thousands of years later that have evolved into something completely different. This is why and how we share some of these identical markers with apes and chimpanzees.
You suggest that I'm making a ridiculous suggestion... yet you're the one who believes that a worthless segment of DNA can result in vital functionality to an organism.
DNA homology is a failed argument that has been soundly debunked ages ago. It's founding premise relies on attempted philosophical disproof of intelligent design.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115853 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry where does it say that ERVs have anything to do with the above nonsense about a virus allowing a host to start replicating - are you nuts.
Want to back up this claim , may as well as you never backed up your lie about the majority of physicians rejecting evolution - one lie can be a mistake , 2 is a habit.
You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115854 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERS's have been proven to have functionality. One, for example, is vital for the proper function of the placenta. The proposal that these segments of genetic code were worthless segments resultant from past parasitic infections requires the conclusion that an ancient mammal was infected by a virus and thereafter acquired the capacity to reproduce.

LOL. Sorry, but no. You have either misunderstood the research or are just copying off a fundy brainwashed creotard site.

The insertion coding does seem to decrease the chance that the placenta will be rejected.

Creationists say the funniest things.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115855 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.

What you have said in the above is that you don't understand ERVs and you really don't understand the scientific method either.

ERVs STILL exist.
ERVs are STILL infecting hosts.
ERVs are STILL inserting portions of their DNA in to said hosts.

All of this is PROVEN science.

Now, if you want to keep babbling about this then find a SCIENTIFIC source that says otherwise.

[sound of crickets chirping]


Point 2: once ERV genetic material is inserted into the host DNA the SAME evolutionary (e.g. mutation) drivers CAN and (eventually) WILL alter that material.

Game, set, match.

Come back when you grow up, kid.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115856 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.
Again you seem to have difficulties in reading my posts - is English not your first language?

I asked you to back up your assertion that science suggests a viral insertion gave its host the ability to reproduce.

No one with even the slightest knowledge of the subject suggests this , so it would suggest it is something you made up.

Care to prove me wrong ?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115857 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You suggest that I'm making a ridiculous suggestion... yet you're the one who believes that a worthless segment of DNA can result in vital functionality to an organism.
DNA homology is a failed argument that has been soundly debunked ages ago. It's founding premise relies on attempted philosophical disproof of intelligent design.

Sorry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biol...

Busted again. You are reading a lot of creotard nonsense but clearly you are not interested in the scientific reality. That is cool, believe what you want, but facts are still facts.

When they have failed at science the creationist all seem to run screaming "philosophy". I wonder why that is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115858 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.

Translation: You're the one who accepts the proven science of ERVs.

See, when it is translated out of creation-speak into English it is actually a compliment and not the insult you were going for.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115859 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have said in the above is that you don't understand ERVs and you really don't understand the scientific method either.
ERVs STILL exist.
ERVs are STILL infecting hosts.
ERVs are STILL inserting portions of their DNA in to said hosts.
All of this is PROVEN science.
Now, if you want to keep babbling about this then find a SCIENTIFIC source that says otherwise.
[sound of crickets chirping]
Point 2: once ERV genetic material is inserted into the host DNA the SAME evolutionary (e.g. mutation) drivers CAN and (eventually) WILL alter that material.
Game, set, match.
Come back when you grow up, kid.
I predict your crickets will be setting up a Mariaci band and selling singles via iTunes

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115860 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.
You are of course the one making up claims without any evidence. Some ERV's are functional, not all of them. They are jam packed with genetic information, is it any wonder that some of them get used in a helpful way to their host. It seems the vast majority are nonfunctional. If you want to claim that they are all functional you must show it.

Your common sense is nonsensical. I think my situation is much more likely than yours. You, like other cretinists are grabbing at straws and as usual over generalizing. Once again, some ERV's being of use does not mean that all of them are of use. In fact the use of the one ERV was noted partially due to the fact that most ERV's are nonfunctional.

Without any evidence your claims can be wiped away with the back of my hand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115861 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you seem to have difficulties in reading my posts - is English not your first language?
I asked you to back up your assertion that science suggests a viral insertion gave its host the ability to reproduce.
No one with even the slightest knowledge of the subject suggests this , so it would suggest it is something you made up.
Care to prove me wrong ?

Like so much creationist nonsense the seed of this lie actually contains some, microscopic, truth. There was an ERV insertion discovered that seems to aid the placenta by helping to control estrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...

Of course our friends "understanding" of it is typical creotard drivel.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Regolith Based Li... 67,287
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 15 min King Carrot 925
What does the theory of evolution state? 33 min pshun2404 173
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr pshun2404 374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,677
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Dogen 221,264
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,537
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr wondering 160,962
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 19 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web