Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115882 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.
"Functionality" is a wide open term. If an ERV contributes to prevent a desease, that is functionality. If an ERV contributes to causing a desease, that is also functionality. The functionality of most of the ERV's in the human genome are unknown, so it would be a stretch to call all of them vital. But the one common factor in all ERV's is that they were acquired from previous generations.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115883 Feb 2, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. That cannot be the conclusion. If it was a mammal it already had the capacity to reproduce. I don't know what study you are talking about, but an ERV could have modified the reproductive ability of a mammal, but it would not have been responsible for creating it. If the ERV was vital for mammalian reproduction, it had to have been acquired from an ancestor of mammals.
Are you sure you didn't mistake the class in Leggos for a class in Biology?
Read the article. I claims that if it weren't for viruses, mammals couldn't reproduce. The article is pro evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115884 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that retroviruses infect hosts and insert their DNA into them. What is your point?
Some can infect germ cells. Those ERV's are passed on to the next generation.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115885 Feb 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there never was a "junk DNA" paradigm. I challenge you to find one.
And what is your evidence that all ERV's would be useless? It is looking like you are falling for your own fake paradigm. Since ERV's are DNA there is no written reason that they could not have been co-opted to some degree by the host.
The proposal that a random segment of genetic code could be inserted and result in functionality is absurd. It was assumed by all evolutionary biologists in the 1970's that ALL ERVs were nonfunctional... Until they were proven wrong. Now you're pretending that evolution predicts functional ERVs.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115886 Feb 2, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Some can infect germ cells. Those ERV's are passed on to the next generation.
You still haven't made a point.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115887 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that retroviruses infect hosts and insert their DNA into them. What is your point?

My point is that you (again) don't know what you are talking about.

Please read about a subject before you post on it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115888 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Read the article. I claims that if it weren't for viruses, mammals couldn't reproduce. The article is pro evolution.
You mean pro-science. Do you find it strange that a scientific magazine would have a scientific article in it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115889 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has collapsed, and your persistence in defending it only reveals your base ignorance. Every one of your strawman arguments has been soundly debunked. Darwinism has been reduced to nothing.

All you are doing is demonstrating your fundamental ignorance of the subject. You are just running off with creotard talking points and you have no idea about the real science behind what is being discussed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115890 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The proposal that a random segment of genetic code could be inserted and result in functionality is absurd. It was assumed by all evolutionary biologists in the 1970's that ALL ERVs were nonfunctional... Until they were proven wrong. Now you're pretending that evolution predicts functional ERVs.
That is not a paradigm then. You need to look up the definition.

Yes, it was assumed early on that ERV's were all useless. So what? They were wrong. Some ERV's are useful, most so far seem not to be. ERV's like the one in your article make the news since it IS useful. Another useless ERV would not be news.

And what is your evidence that existing DNA could not be used by a host? Now most of the time it seems that it can't. There are thousands of ERV's in the genome and only a few have been found to have a function.

So you made a positive claim, let's see your evidence.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115891 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you take the time to read this article, which is pro-evolution, you'll understand...
http://wildcat2030.tumblr.com/post/1787818552...
The article tells us that there are several ERV's found in mammal genomes that contribute to reproductive ability. There is NO help for creationism in this article.
Alien Outlaw

Overland Park, KS

#115892 Feb 2, 2013
appleby wrote:
<quoted text>
"Functionality" is a wide open term. If an ERV contributes to prevent a disease, that is functionality. If an ERV contributes to causing a disease, that is also functionality. The functionality of most of the ERVs in the human genome are unknown, so it would be a stretch to call all of them vital. But the one common factor in all ERV's is that they were acquired from previous generations.
So, sounds crazy this alien stuff? Simply make a point that human knowledge, technology and theories can not be applied to beings of the cosmos and its a crazy thing. Because curtain humans must read it to under stand and believe it. Its outside their realm of possibilities. Understand this, we have been followers, now we are observers of other worlds.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115893 Feb 2, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>Can human knowledge, theories and technology be used to understand how entities navigate the cosmos. A lady on the radio said, "God told me it was my time, he talked to me." Really?
If she claims to be an eyewitness, why would you doubt her?

Or, if someone claims to be an eyewitness of aliens, why would you doubt them?

Maybe they both have a serious credibility problem.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115894 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you take the time to read this article, which is pro-evolution, you'll understand...
http://wildcat2030.tumblr.com/post/1787818552...

What the article says is correct. But it, in no way, supports your contention.

"Viruses have insinuated themselves into the genome of our ancestors for hundreds of millions of years. They typically have gotten there by infecting eggs or sperm, inserting their own DNA into ours. There are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA. Most of this virus DNA has been hit by so many mutations that itís nothing but baggage our species carries along from one generation to the next. Yet there are some viral genes that still make proteins in our bodies."

Think of ERVs with the same understanding we have of mutations. Some are positive, some are negative and some are neutral.

Second (unrelated), remember that the ERV material is just as subject to mutations as any other portion of genetic material.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115895 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What is your point?

If you don't know then it reflects poorly on you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115896 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, I see that you've been effectively nailed to the wall... hence, your childish rantings. Rather than address the implausibility of the ridiculous ERV paradigm, you willfully choose to remain mired in nineteenth century thinking... that homology somehow indicates common descent. You maintain this worldview despite the fact that it is contradicted by science.
I truly apologize if I've offended you by demeaning your precious atheistic religion. I realize that you are attempting to utilize science to justify your amoral worldview, but your efforts are transparent.

You need to read more and talk less. If you don't understand that means you should try to learn.

In that light your post makes no sense, even in an accidental way.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115897 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The proposal that a random segment of genetic code could be inserted and result in functionality is absurd. It was assumed by all evolutionary biologists in the 1970's that ALL ERVs were nonfunctional... Until they were proven wrong. Now you're pretending that evolution predicts functional ERVs.
Wrong as usual. First off an ERV is not a random segment of genetic code.

Second, yes, early on it was assumed that all ERV's were nonfunctional. So what? That proves nothing either way. So it is an invalid argument.

Third, no, I am not pretending that evolution made such a prediction. Did you seem me doing that? No. Do you see any other scientists doing that? Again no. Some of this we are still learning. That is the way science works.

Hey, I just noticed, that was three strikes in one post.

You are out!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115898 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the reference... It proves the fallacy of the ERV/junk DNA paradigm. If ancient viruses inserted DNA into the germ cells of a host, those sequences would be USELESS.
Some may be useless, some harmful, others helpful. We can only say for sure about the ERV's that have a KNOWN harmful or helpful function. There is no current science that backs up the idea of all ERV's being useless. Where are you getting your information from?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115899 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the reference... It proves the fallacy of the ERV/junk DNA paradigm. If ancient viruses inserted DNA into the germ cells of a host, those sequences would be USELESS.

[sigh.....bangs head].

No, like mutations they can add function, take function away or be neutral. Further, over time those roles may change via mutation or even overlapping erv insert. Most of ERV material is useless, but of course some of it will have some positive function.

Sorry you are so steeped in prejudiced ideology that you don't even recognize that I am a Christian and your atheist spittle does not stick to me.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115900 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Read the article. I claims that if it weren't for viruses, mammals couldn't reproduce. The article is pro evolution.
Yes. If not for a virus passed on from the ancestors of mammals, it appears that mammals would never have evolved. Something else would have evolved.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115901 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The proposal that a random segment of genetic code could be inserted and result in functionality is absurd. It was assumed by all evolutionary biologists in the 1970's that ALL ERVs were nonfunctional... Until they were proven wrong. Now you're pretending that evolution predicts functional ERVs.
Wouldn't you say it's a good thing that science does not get mired in dogma? The science behind DNA was in its infancy in the 1970's.

Do you think it would be harmful or helpful if religion could break free of dogma?

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
Curious dilemma about DNA 7 min replaytime 426
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min River Tam 221,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr replaytime 67,566
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr replaytime 417
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 28,712
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Eagle 12 3,559
News Texas' battle over teaching evolution comes dow... 4 hr pshun2404 8
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Goof Hunter 160,998
More from around the web