Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115975 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.
It's not pretending. That's why I explained to you the predictions many days before you made these objections. And why I explained to you MONTHS ago - common ancestry makes no claims over the particular functions of the genome. It makes predictions based on the patterns of inheritance. Which is WHY ERV orthology, not specific function or lack thereof, demonstrates evolution.

6 months later and you still repeat the same arguments without dealing with ours.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115976 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> What a load of BS. No principle of experimental genetics can validate your bedtime stories.
Sure it does. Here it is again for all the liars for Jesus who missed it the first 5 times:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115977 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.
I'll remind you one more time - pattern of inheritance, NOT function, is the prediction of common ancestry.

You've never addressed this.

Since you can only trot out the same refuted BS it is only rational to conclude that you're just another typical dishonest liar for Jesus.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115978 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....
Speculation is superfluous once it passes scientific testing.

It has.

Unlucky, Deef.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115979 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Soon I will go back and take a look at just how much of my posts you have debunked since I was last here, which I REALLY hope you will have attempted.
Why is it that I'm going to be disappointed?
Because the scientific theory of creationists is also a valid scientific theory...

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115980 Feb 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Russell, good to see you.
My New Years resolution is to get creationists to fess up to when they lie.
You started a thread late last year where you asserted that science says the first replicating life form contained 1000s of base pairs, and therefore evolution is wrong due to the tired old probability argument.
I asked you about 10 times to give a reference to this - since you have turned up here - thought it may be an opportune moment to redeem yourself and back up what you assert.
Or do I give up on my New Years resolution ?
And for reference, here is that thread. Where Russ starts out lying from the very first post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...

Despite his many mistakes he's not conceded a single one.
noblex

Overland Park, KS

#115981 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the scientific theory of creationists is also a valid scientific theory...
:-/
Scientific theory? A theory is a guess. So, creationists guess God created all things?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115982 Feb 3, 2013
noblex wrote:
<quoted text>Scientific theory? A theory is a guess. So, creationists guess God created all things?
No, a theory is nowhere near being a guess.

A scientific theory has a very specific definition. In fact a scientific theory could be said to outrank a scientific law. You should learn the meaning of the words that you try to use.
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#115983 Feb 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Russell, good to see you.
My New Years resolution is to get creationists to fess up to when they lie.
You started a thread late last year where you asserted that science says the first replicating life form contained 1000s of base pairs, and therefore evolution is wrong due to the tired old probability argument.
I asked you about 10 times to give a reference to this - since you have turned up here - thought it may be an opportune moment to redeem yourself and back up what you assert.
Or do I give up on my New Years resolution ?
Hi Mugwump
I do hope you have other New Year resolutions?
This present one seem rather narrow and asinine......

I do not recall my saying "1000's of base pairs" precisely, although I may have said that a first replicating cell would require thousands of proteins.

Actually, no. I didn't even say that.

Here is my actual quote #183 from the Creation/evolution thread:

"How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

This seems to have morphed into "1000's of base pairs".....

I prefer to think of "base pairs" as nucleotide residues.

Anyway, here is your quote #185 from the aforementioned thread:

"Ahh the infamous 'Gish gallop'

Lets concentrate on one point at a time

1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

Question - what part of Abiogenisis states that the initial self-replicating molecule(chemistry) has to code for 100s of proteins ?

Fancy addressing this one issue first Russell ?"

Notice the change in inference between my statement and your rehash of it?

I said life!

You called it the first replicator.

AND then, you say..."the first replicating life form contained 1000s of base pairs,"

Not what I said.

I suppose you deny that a living replicating cell needs to produce hundreds of proteins to survive???

Anyhow, its back to the drawing board with you.
Get up to scratch with your reading and let's meet again.

Let's not waste my time with your silly NY resolutions.

I never lie.

Here's a bone for you to chew on....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115984 Feb 3, 2013
noblex wrote:
<quoted text>Scientific theory? A theory is a guess.
Not in science it's not:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
noblex wrote:
So, creationists guess God created all things?
Yes, but theirs isn't a scientific theory. Due to lack of testability.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115985 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
I never lie.
Actually you did:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Russell wrote:
Here's a bone for you to chew on....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, for the same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, nor the germ theory of disease rely on the origin of germs. All theories work as they all make valid successful scientific predictions based on currently observable phenomena.
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#115986 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you did:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, for the same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, nor the germ theory of disease rely on the origin of germs. All theories work as they all make valid successful scientific predictions based on currently observable phenomena.
Based on current observable phenomena, my theory is that evolution is patently wrong.

And, no.
Simply stating that I lie, does not make it true.

I never lie.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115987 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on current observable phenomena, my theory is that evolution is patently wrong.
And, no.
Simply stating that I lie, does not make it true.
I never lie.
You lied. You used the term "theory". You have no theory.

Do you even know the definition of the word? Perhaps that is an out for you.
Russell

Belconnen, Australia

#115988 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied. You used the term "theory". You have no theory.
Do you even know the definition of the word? Perhaps that is an out for you.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied. You used the term "theory". You have no theory.
Do you even know the definition of the word? Perhaps that is an out for you.
Hey, Forum Fairy

You are the only PROVEN liar!

I have only just posted on the sister-thread http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Post #1623, that evolution hardly makes it as a theory, by the Dude's own definition, or anyone else's for that matter.

It can scarcely be called a hypothesis.

I noticed you keeping well away from discussion on ERV's!

Bottom still sore? Tsk, tsk...
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115989 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Mugwump
I do hope you have other New Year resolutions?
This present one seem rather narrow and asinine......
I do not recall my saying "1000's of base pairs" precisely, although I may have said that a first replicating cell would require thousands of proteins.
Actually, no. I didn't even say that.
Here is my actual quote #183 from the Creation/evolution thread:
"How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"
This seems to have morphed into "1000's of base pairs".....
I prefer to think of "base pairs" as nucleotide residues.
Anyway, here is your quote #185 from the aforementioned thread:
"Ahh the infamous 'Gish gallop'
Lets concentrate on one point at a time
1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Question - what part of Abiogenisis states that the initial self-replicating molecule(chemistry) has to code for 100s of proteins ?
Fancy addressing this one issue first Russell ?"
Notice the change in inference between my statement and your rehash of it?
I said life!
You called it the first replicator.
AND then, you say..."the first replicating life form contained 1000s of base pairs,"
Not what I said.
I suppose you deny that a living replicating cell needs to produce hundreds of proteins to survive???
Anyhow, its back to the drawing board with you.
Get up to scratch with your reading and let's meet again.
Let's not waste my time with your silly NY resolutions.
I never lie.
Here's a bone for you to chew on....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
You are quite correct - you specified coding for 1000s of proteins not containing 1000s of base pairs.

I know it was nonsense - but admit I was wrong on the specifics .

But unless I am mistaken (and ignoring for now the irelevance of abiogenisis to evolution), you never actually answered the question did you?

Question - what part of Abiogenisis states that the initial self-replicating molecule(chemistry) has to code for 100s of proteins ?

You see creationists tend to throw out misrepresentations of what evolution is actually about, state them as fact the debunk this misrepresentation - now I am sure you wouldn't do that would you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115990 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hey, Forum Fairy
You are the only PROVEN liar!
I have only just posted on the sister-thread http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Post #1623, that evolution hardly makes it as a theory, by the Dude's own definition, or anyone else's for that matter.
It can scarcely be called a hypothesis.
I noticed you keeping well away from discussion on ERV's!
Bottom still sore? Tsk, tsk...
Thank you for informing me about that piece of idiocy.

Do you know what a theory is? You still don't have one.

Now that you are showing a glimmering of knowledge of what it takes to formulate a theory I can definitely declare that you lied.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115991 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Here you go Bud,
Read stuff before jumping in the deep end.....
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090312/full/n...
From: Erika Check Hayden, Human genome at ten: Life is complicated
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/4... , accessed today:
"When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear," says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. "Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It's infinitely more complex."
Your problem is you're thinking linear.
That's redundant, so give it up.
The quaternary structure of DNA folding has huge implications
See,
Kapranov P, et al, "Genome-wide transcription and the implications for genomic organization", Nature Reviews. Genetics. 2007 Jun;8(6):413-23. Epub 2007 May 8
"Recent evidence of genome-wide transcription in several species indicates that the amount of transcription that occurs cannot be entirely accounted for by current sets of genome-wide annotations. Evidence indicates that most of both strands of the human genome might be transcribed, implying extensive overlap of transcriptional units and regulatory elements. These observations suggest that genomic architecture is not co-linear, but is instead interleaved and modular, and that the same genomic sequences are multifunctional: that is, used for multiple independently regulated transcripts and as regulatory regions."
Also, see
Rick Weiss, "Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
"The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks."
This is all ancient history...
Where've you been?
Nope. My approach is not linear thinking. I have no doubt that the process and control of gene expression is complex and non-linear.

It does not help the case for intelligent design one bit.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115992 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>All of your so-called "evidence" is based solely on metaphysical presuppositions and is therefore baseless. If you have some actual science to back up NDT, let's see it. All you are capable of doing is blindly copying and pasting smokescreens
Rubbish.

The intermediates I listed were predictions of evolution. There is nothing metaphysical about tiktaalik, nor the fact that it was actively searched for according to predictions of existing fossil finds plus the assumption of common ancestry.

The lab controlled experiments in adaptation produced results that supported adaptation by mutation and selection.

There is nothing metaphysical about:

1. exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity

2. competition for limited resources

3. variable survival and reproduction rates depending on fitness to the environment.

It is actually you who is making a metaphysical supposition and merely repeating the smokescreens of blind critics.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115993 Feb 3, 2013
All this narcissist on narcissist violence. So sad!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115994 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on current observable phenomena, my theory is that evolution is patently wrong.
And, no.
Simply stating that I lie, does not make it true.
I never lie.
You mean, based on your incredulity that something as complex as the genome could evolve, right? Evolution generates complexity. Thus complexity is not an issue for evolution, so long as its incremental.

3.5 billion years of incrementalism can produce a lot more complexity that you are going to get your head around in a hurry.

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) 6 min candlesmell 94,392
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 168,859
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 1 hr Rose_NoHo 7
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr Prince of Darkness 6,001
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 5 hr Rose_NoHo 305
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... Fri 15th Dalai Lama 29
Evolutionists are now called.. 'BUBBLE PEOPLE' Fri Rose_NoHo 44