Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

Birkenhead, UK

#115961 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Reference please... Rather than simply posting atheist BS I would appreciate if you would back up your unsubstantiated claims.
Atheism? H, is that you admitting your "scientific alternative" is Godmagic again?

Why yes, of course it is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115962 Feb 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge.
YOU said there was literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of evolution. I asked for ONE that proves macroevolution true.
Right.
Let me make this so simple even an evotard can understand:
Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, collectively referred to as within "created kind"), and with no known significant exceptions."
Prove me wrong.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Furthermore,
Cowboy's Rule of Non-Macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation, such that, the organism remains forever permanently locked within its own defined species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, regardless the number of generations or passage of time, and with no known historic or existing significant exceptions."
Okey-dokely:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

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

Now can you explain to me why you continually demand evidence we both know you're not interested anyway due to the fact that evidence is irrelevant to Godmagic?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115963 Feb 3, 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.
Ah, so you're claiming that we're claiming that the host organism that was infected with the syncytin 1 for example couldn't reproduce even though we've never made that claim?

Skippy the bush kangaroo doesn't care what you think.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115964 Feb 3, 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.
Not ERS's. ERV's. And I already told you this quite a number of days before. Except for the "suddenly acquiring the capacity to reproduce" part. That's just creationist caricature BS.

Skippy the bush kangaroo doesn't have this ERV, but still gets all teh laydeeeeezz....
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115966 Feb 3, 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.
Actually it's not, for reasons explained in my own linkys.
HTS wrote:
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.
Not really, since the entire premise of evolution is that a constant stream of new DNA eventually inevitably leads to new function. It's just in this case the new DNA was from a retrovirus rather than a normal mutation acquired by new offspring. So I'm not sure why you'd claim a successful prediction of evolution a "failed" one. Sorry bub, but your irreducible complexity argument has been crud for decades before you even started using it. Because that's really all this is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115967 Feb 3, 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.
ID doesn't even come into it. Where in the research on ERV's did it say that the ERV's weren't designed and that the organisms weren't designed and that the common ancestor of the great apes wasn't deliberately infected with a retrovirus?

For the evidence of common ancestry *to that point at least* would still be valid even if the ID scenario I just proposed did actually happen.

This rebukes your claim that ERV evidence is based on a "philosophical rejection of IDC".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115968 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.
You're the one who can't refute it.

Don't worry, you're not alone! There's other fundies here who are as dumb as you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115969 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that retroviruses infect hosts and insert their DNA into them. What is your point?
That you are unable to explain orthology using your "scientific alternative".

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115970 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Reference please... Rather than simply posting atheist BS I would appreciate if you would back up your unsubstantiated claims.

Which reference would you like.

Genetic Entropy was falsified, in print, actually BEFORE the book was actually released.

It is a book about religion, not about biological reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115971 Feb 3, 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.
Hey look! You're repeating yourself from last week. And ironically you make your own straw-man argument by bringing up "junk DNA" even though it was irrelevant to the point of ERV's.

So I'll ask you again, just like I do every other fundie - why are you pretending to discuss scientific evidence when scientific evidence is COMPLETELY superfluous to invisible Jewish wizardry?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115972 Feb 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Muller's ratchet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller 's_ratchet
The links at the bottom of the article should suffice.
And like all creationists you conflate evolution with athesism,presumably as the theory of evolution dosent NEED to invoke God.
As far as I know NO science (*) NEEDS to invoke god - so do you reject ALL science ?
* except for creation science - so my statement still stands

And, ironically, many of the big names in evolutionary biology and genetics are Christians.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115973 Feb 3, 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.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.
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.
But COULD be co-opted later.

The problem here is not that evolution isn't capable of making valid successful scientific predictions. You even reject those because you simply reject the premise of evolution entirely a priori due to theological reasons.

Which explains why you keep ranting on about atheism all the time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115974 Feb 3, 2013
Russell wrote:

You do realize that this is an op-ed piece by a substitute teacher.

It is not science. It does not even do a good job of pretending to be science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Kansas City, MO

#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?

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) 7 min Brian_G 19,782
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 min Paul Porter1 141,819
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Paul Porter1 168,872
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr dirtclod 6,215
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 14 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web