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
112,841 - 112,860 of 172,468 Comments Last updated 32 min ago
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115872
Feb 2, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Right,... just like mold growing accidentally in a petri dish couldn't possibly produce a cure for anything (penicillin) accidents and mutations can have happy consequences as well as dire ones.
What is your point?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115873
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.
You need to read up on ERV's. Science has changed a lot since the 15th century.

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

from the above link:
"Endogenous retroviruses can play an active role in shaping genomes. Most studies in this area have focused on the genomes of humans and higher primates, but other vertebrates, such as mice and sheep, have also been studied in depth.[1][2][3][4] The long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences that flank ERV genomes frequently act as alternate promoters and enhancers, often contributing to the transcriptome by producing tissue-specific variants. In addition, the retroviral proteins themselves have been co-opted to serve novel host functions, particularly in reproduction and development. Recombination between homologous retroviral sequences has also contributed to gene shuffling and the generation of genetic variation. Furthermore, in the instance of potentially antagonistic effects of retroviral sequences, repressor genes have co-evolved to combat them."
Clone

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115874
Feb 2, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask two believers about those same topics and you always get two totally different answers. Your point is null, you have none.
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?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115875
Feb 2, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What is your point?
DNA => ERV disruption or other mutation => 9x% no or bad effect +?% good effect => Evolution
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115876
Feb 2, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115877
Feb 2, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to read up on ERV's. Science has changed a lot since the 15th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...
from the above link:
"Endogenous retroviruses can play an active role in shaping genomes. Most studies in this area have focused on the genomes of humans and higher primates, but other vertebrates, such as mice and sheep, have also been studied in depth.[1][2][3][4] The long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences that flank ERV genomes frequently act as alternate promoters and enhancers, often contributing to the transcriptome by producing tissue-specific variants. In addition, the retroviral proteins themselves have been co-opted to serve novel host functions, particularly in reproduction and development. Recombination between homologous retroviral sequences has also contributed to gene shuffling and the generation of genetic variation. Furthermore, in the instance of potentially antagonistic effects of retroviral sequences, repressor genes have co-evolved to combat them."
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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115878
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.
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?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115879
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' you linked to is a blog that links to a blog - care to post where science states that viral insertions caused the host to gain the ability to reproduce (as you asserted)

Sorry to labor the point but creationists have a reputation for making shit up (like your claim that most physicians reject evolution - that I noticed you haven't supported)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115880
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.
There never was a "junk DNA paradigm" in the first place, so it is impossible for it to have collapsed.

What strawman arguments are you talking about?

Strawman arguments is a sin that creationists usually fall into, not scientists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115881
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.
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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 min marksman11 136,153
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 1 hr Chimney1 161
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr wondering 114,872
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 17 hr Zog Has-fallen 343
Science News (Sep '13) Tue positronium 2,846
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Aug 25 ChristineM 286
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••