Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,059

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." Read more
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115907 Feb 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Most ERVs do nothing useful.
They are inserted more or less at random.
They follow a nested hierarchy based on evolutionary distance.
Finding a few that might contribute some useful function does not destroy the "ERV paradigm".
And even if it did, you still have to deal with the "pseudogene paradigm" and the "ubiquitous protein" paradigms which show exactly the same nested hierarchy pattern that can be explained by common ancestry but not by "separate and distinct kinds" creationism.
The pseudogenes paradigm also has collapsed. Virtually all DNA is now believed to be functional. Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115908 Feb 2, 2013
ENCODE:

...As T. Ryan Gregory of University of Guelph points out, most of the major media outlets ran with the press release and proclaimed the revolutionary discovery that Junk DNA isn’t Junk after all.

The key point of misunderstanding, as both Gregory and Larry Moran at University of Toronto, point out, is that the ENCODE team, headed by Ewan Birney, decided at the outset of their announcement to define biological function in as liberal a way as possible. Here’s Gregory:

"To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed. Actual evidence (which itself may not convince many experts) suggests 20% is functional in the sense of, well, having a biological function. The 80% value refers only to “specific biological activity”.

IN other words, every ID/creationist from here to Siberia has latched onto a rather silly statement by Birney, taken out of context. There still appears to be only 20% essential function in the genome, plus a lot of useless activity.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115909 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> What a load of BS. No principle of experimental genetics can validate your bedtime stories.
Rubbish.

Evolution works on the principle of random variation and natural selection. And ERV insertion that altered function somehow would follow the same set of rules as any other mutation. Mostly neutral, occasionally lethal or beneficial, and often deleterious. We do not need a separate framework for ERVs - they would in principle work like any other mutation (random change to the genome).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115910 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The pseudogenes paradigm also has collapsed. Virtually all DNA is now believed to be functional. Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.
Rubbish again. You are taking a loose statement by Birney and ignoring that his definition of functional just means any kind of biological activity at all. By that definition even the parasitical re-copying of itself by an ERV is "function".

Even Birney still agrees that only 20% of function is likely to be useful to the organism (and only 8-9% has actually been identified to date - 20% is an estimate).

So long as you guys continue to merely ride the coattails of real researchers and try to twist their words or meanings to suit yourselves, you will always be nothing more than a troublesome nuisance to those who even bother to listen to your drivel.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115911 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The pseudogenes paradigm also has collapsed. Virtually all DNA is now believed to be functional. Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.
Reality: predictions of Junk DNA are not core to evolution.

Reality: in early investigations of DNA, biologists were surprised to discover that little of it appeared to do much. Early estimates of number of genes etc has to be revised down drastically.

Reality: Biologists accommodated this with the colloquial term Junk DNA meaning originally non-coding DNA. Though it seemed wasteful, evolution could accommodate it if there was no strong selection factor operating against this waste.

Reality: More recently, biologists have found that a large part of the non-coding DNA does something useful, and the figure may be as high as 20%.

Reality: Of the remaining 80%, 60% may be biologically active in some way but for the most part the activity appears to be useless to the organism.

Of course, creationists were ignored in this scientific discovery from start to finish, as they always are by real biologists...but the creationists noted that Junk DNA would be a difficult paradigm to fit into any Design scenario. Therefore they have been aching to prove that the whole genome is useful, and will happily take anything they can out of context in order to remove the idea of useless DNA from the picture.

Birney, talking of course only to his relevant audience of real biologists, pointed out that up to 80% of the genome shows some kind of biological activity.

Creationists pounce, jumping to the conclusion that this means all DNA is useful, Junk is dead, evolution is dead, blah blah blah.

Real biologists continue to ignore their stupidity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115912 Feb 3, 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.

That is a step closer to the truth.

Our current means of reproduction utilizes genetic material that was originally from an ERV.

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/87/7/2067....

http://www.retrovirology.com/content/5/1/6

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115913 Feb 3, 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.

This fallacy is call Appeal to Ignorance.

Based on our knowledge of how the genome works it is not at all improbable that some ERVs would have found a functional niche.

For the 5th time (you are a slow learner) ERVs (based on past experience) can have or can develop (through future mutations) functionality. There is nothing fundamentally surprising about this from an evolutionary perspective.
One way or another

United States

#115914 Feb 3, 2013
The failing school systems across the planet, due to government control, fail in the most important way and that is, to teach how to think for oneself.

The gov teaches A B C's and 1 2 3's, it teaches what to say and what to do. It teaches what not to say and what not to do.

Most of the housing bubble and fall were not due to lending to those who couldn't afford it, but it was due to the group think, taught all throughout school and work.

I'll bet none of you know what it was.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115915 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> What a load of BS. No principle of experimental genetics can validate your bedtime stories.

Do some reading and get back to us when you know more.
defender

United States

#115916 Feb 3, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>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.
One must be careful not to step in the agenda pushing BS like some media outlets ( Talkorigins , Scientific American and many others )... No matter what subject is at hand ( ERV's, Higgs Boson, etc )... Without solid proof it's speculation or just bald face lies to sell print and get more funding... Just look at the global warming money racket !! Evolutionist will believe any snake oil sales man that might give Their foolishness some hope....
One way or another

United States

#115917 Feb 3, 2013
If you are able to think for yourself, it should be very easy to figure out, especially in hindsight and knowing that the rise and fall of the housing industry was due to group think and action.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115918 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The pseudogenes paradigm also has collapsed. Virtually all DNA is now believed to be functional. Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.

No, that is not correct. And even if it was it would not have any bearing on evolution which is a proven fact.

I am amazed that creationist think they can wish away what has been observed in the genomic and fossil records AND what is observed in the field and in laboratories. Just pretend it did not happen and give some philosophical based excuse, is their moniker.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115919 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
ENCODE:
...As T. Ryan Gregory of University of Guelph points out, most of the major media outlets ran with the press release and proclaimed the revolutionary discovery that Junk DNA isn’t Junk after all.
The key point of misunderstanding, as both Gregory and Larry Moran at University of Toronto, point out, is that the ENCODE team, headed by Ewan Birney, decided at the outset of their announcement to define biological function in as liberal a way as possible. Here’s Gregory:
"To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed. Actual evidence (which itself may not convince many experts) suggests 20% is functional in the sense of, well, having a biological function. The 80% value refers only to “specific biological activity”.
IN other words, every ID/creationist from here to Siberia has latched onto a rather silly statement by Birney, taken out of context. There still appears to be only 20% essential function in the genome, plus a lot of useless activity.

Thank you for (again) debunking this creationist canard.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115920 Feb 3, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
One must be careful not to step in the agenda pushing BS like some media outlets ( Talkorigins , Scientific American and many others )... No matter what subject is at hand ( ERV's, Higgs Boson, etc )... Without solid proof it's speculation or just bald face lies to sell print and get more funding... Just look at the global warming money racket !! Evolutionist will believe any snake oil sales man that might give Their foolishness some hope....
Hasn't worked since Galileo. Won't work now.

There is more truth in the worst single edition of Scientific American than in all of Genesis.

Get over it.
defender

United States

#115921 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Hasn't worked since Galileo. Won't work now.

There is more truth in the worst single edition of Scientific American than in all of Genesis.

Get over it.
Yeah right... In last months issue alone they jump from one expert saying evolution couldn't have happened as fast as we think to another article right after that one with another so called scientist saying evolution in humans is occurring at an alarming rate!! Lol...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115922 Feb 3, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right... In last months issue alone they jump from one expert saying evolution couldn't have happened as fast as we think to another article right after that one with another so called scientist saying evolution in humans is occurring at an alarming rate!! Lol...
There are no "experts" that claim evolution could not happen. Only deluded idiots.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115923 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish.
Evolution works on the principle of random variation and natural selection.
You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115924 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get real. Very few ERVs are functional.
But Subduction is right. If something gets wound up in the genetic code there is always a chance it will have some effect, and even a chance that the effect will become part of a beneficial change in the organism.
While recent estimates are that 80% of the genome does "something", the same sources are still telling us that the vast majority of that "function" is useless, such as merely churning out useless RNA fragments that are then broken down with no further ado. Useful function had been determined for only 8-9% of the DNA and the researchers estimate that figure could be up to 20% once they have nailed it all down.
So while junk DNA is not and never was a core prediction of evolution, the presence of so much useless material still remains a conundrum for Creationists.
All of your evo-babbling is transparent. You cannot defend any tenet of evolution without reference to religion. The percentage of ERV functionality centers entirely around the religion of atheism. Think about it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115925 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.
Funniest post today!

Sorry, HTS, evolution was discovered using the scientific method, it has been tested with the scientific method. It has always passed, this is highly indicative that it is true. It is an almost universally accepted scientific theory. You don't get any more scientific than that.
Clone

Kansas City, MO

#115926 Feb 3, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here is the issue, some humans have been labeled "Expert". Some humans deep inside know they are the smartest people on earth. A few are on this sight, they probably have been reading everything they can access. Thats great, but sometimes common sense and intelligence cant be stored together in the brain. The ability to read about something and store that info and be able to think and analyze that info is true intelligence. The Big Bang is a theory based on "Expert" knowledge, does not mean its true. Science will never know the truth, text books are filled with human based logic to try and understand our life in the universe. Just because its in a book or on the net does NOT mean its correct or accurate....think people.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Aura Mytha 154,334
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Patrick n Angela 17,895
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 6 hr Denisova 870
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 6 hr Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... 11 hr MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee 23 hr Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Wed MikeF 3,394
More from around the web