Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Dogen]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
"Some of them"?
Who of "them"?
I guess there are no atheist evolutionists in prison for tax evasion?

Probably not. Atheists are rare in prison. Seems that either only religious people commit crimes or only religious people get caught.

But that is not the point. The point is that there is a breed of creationist who are only in it for the money. They sell books, give talks at fundy churches, get donations to their web sites,....

There is no reason for a Christian to have to be dumbed down by literal creationism. Join those of us who have enough faith to reject creationist nonsense and keep our belief in God. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear then you should try using them.

[Dogen]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
Modern creationism.....?
Hmmmm
Haven't heard that one before...
Did that start with Noah?
Or perchance Jesus??

Actually 'Creationism' came into being in the 1870's.

Modern Creationism was developed by Henry Morris.

Funny, you are as out of touch with creationism as you are with real science.

[Dogen]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
Your usual skim reads have let you down again.....and again.....
I think you should go to bed and stay there
You need a good lie down and a rest
Come back when everything is not so blurry around the edges...

Sounds like SZ nailed you.


Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, you are as dishonest as any other creationist and now I can honestly call you a creatard. You are trying to use claims that the Cambrian was only a few million years long, and it wasn't, to debunk evolution. Yet in the past you have shown that you have YEC beliefs.
If you truly are a YEC then you cannot use that sort of claim to debunk evolution since you don't believe it either.
When a creationist is found not to be honest, and being inconsistent in your beliefs is one way not to be honest, then you cross over into the land of tards.

[appleboy]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
When you have distinctive genomes, existing data, as it were, to use a phrase Dawkins uses a lot, "as it were", variable expression is not evolution.
A quote from an evolutionary biologist:
"Multicellularity is widely viewed as a unique attribute of eukaryotes, somehow made possible by the origin of a more complex cellular architecture and, without question, with the assistance of natural selection.[EDITED FOR BREVITY] radically different cell morphologies.
Nevertheless, King (45) states that “this historical predisposition of eukaryotes to the unicellular lifestyle begs the question of what selective advantages might have been conferred by the transition to multicellularity;” and Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements."
BUT WHERE IS THE DIRECT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT COMPLEXITY IS ROOTED IN ADAPTIVE PROCESSES?(My emphasis)
"But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48)."
Michael Lynch, "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity", PNAS, May 15, 2007, Vol 104, Suppl 1.
He also states in Table 1 in this same paper in realtion to natural selection being a directional force in gaining complexity:
"There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity."
In relation to genetic drift, also Table 1:
"By reducing the efficiency of selection, random genetic drift imposes a high degree of directionality on evolution by increasing the likelihood of fixation of deleterious mutations and decreasing that of beneficial mutations."

You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....

The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.

From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

[appleboy]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
When you have distinctive genomes, existing data, as it were, to use a phrase Dawkins uses a lot, "as it were", variable expression is not evolution.
[EDITED FOR BREVITY] Of course, many other eukaryotes are capable of producing a few different cell types, but the same is true for prokaryotes, some of which produce radically different cell morphologies.
Nevertheless, King (45) states that “this historical predisposition of eukaryotes to the unicellular lifestyle begs the question of what selective advantages might have been conferred by the transition to multicellularity;” and Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements."
BUT WHERE IS THE DIRECT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT COMPLEXITY IS ROOTED IN ADAPTIVE PROCESSES?(My emphasis)
"But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48)."
Michael Lynch, "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity", PNAS, May 15, 2007, Vol 104, Suppl 1.
He also states in Table 1 in this same paper in realtion to natural selection being a directional force in gaining complexity:
"There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity."
In relation to genetic drift, also Table 1:
"By reducing the efficiency of selection, random genetic drift imposes a high degree of directionality on evolution by increasing the likelihood of fixation of deleterious mutations and decreasing that of beneficial mutations."

You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....

The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.

From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

[appleboy]

OOPS! Double post. Sorry.

[Dogen]

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....
The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.
From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

So you are saying the Russ was quotemining, a tactic that is disingenuous at best and more likely just dishonest. Is that correct?

[appleboy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I am using the word species as it is normally used. Dogs are all one species but come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes but they can all still produce offspring and they all share common characteristics that we collectively define as the that species. That is the most specific category of life. The next is genus. Two different genuses cannot produces viable vertile offspring but still share much of the same characteristics of which we collectively define it. There is virtually unlimited genetic variation possible within a species with regards to size, shape, color, etc. For example, no two humans share the exact same fingerprint, facial features, eye pattern, or DNA. So this is a perfectly valid definition based on our current knowledge.
And now briefly, I am basing my rule on what is routinely observed and not what is speculated to fit the TOE. Gradualism and the slow fossilization of bones is generally not accepted by anyone therefore there really is no geologic column of fossils that represent vast eons of time and by deduction, no macroevolution. In order for a fossil to form, the creature must be quickly buried in mud under pressure. The old idea that an animal dies and its lies out in the sun and rain with all the decomposers and regardless of what we routinely observe that there is basically nothig left after a few days, the animals is slowly covered by dirt and leaves day after day, year after year, for thousands and millions of years and finally becomes fossilized. And then a framework whereby the fossil pattern found was used to create the framework of a theory is much weaker - and circular - than what is routinely observed. Plus the fact that there are as many or more out of place fossils than evolutionary ones. Plus the fact that there are so many living fossils. Fossils of creatures in very old layers that look just like their living counterparts. Got to go to work.

The fossil record is widely recognized. Dating methods include multiple soil samples all around the specimen. Fossils found in mudslides or in shallow quicksand are not that difficult to date. The vast majority of scientists in archaeology and geology would not agree with you.

[appleboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually his spelling and grammar are still pretty bad once you factor out all of the (unattributed) quotes. He also now uses voice recognition software which cleans it up a great deal.

One of my English Composition professors said that the average college graduate writes at the eighth grade level. So, making some mistakes would be in keeping with the normal range.

But voice recognition software would have never occurred to me.

[appleboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are saying the Russ was quotemining, a tactic that is disingenuous at best and more likely just dishonest. Is that correct?

Yes. Well either quotemining or he just skimmed over the article and didn't know that it did not support his position.

[Russell]

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....
The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.
From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

No that article made precisely the point I wanted.

What other factors drive 'evolution'?

Not mutations
Not genetic drift
Not natural selection

As I have said repeatedly, Darwin's little engine is incapable of innovation... PERIOD

You and your materialistic philosophy are stuffed

Please see:

Gauger A, and Axe D, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway", Biocomplexity, 2011

Excerpt:

"We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth."

Similarly:

"When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe

Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied."

Please also refer to for another blow to your shabby evolutionary stance:

Durrett, R and Schmidt D, "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution", Genetics 180 (2008): 1501-1509

Do you care to offer any explanation for this paper below?
Other than argumentum ad hominem?

These authors, below, describe a highly conserved complex of proteins...present in all ciliated organisms, incl humans--->

Exists in every cell of such organisms and is a complex of 8 or more proteins bound together called the BBSome. This protein complex, discovered in 2007, should not be disturbed. Here’s what happens when it mutates:

“A homozygous mutation in any BBSome subunit (except BBIP10) will make you blind, obese and deaf, will obliterate your sense of smell, will make you grow extra digits and toes and cause your kidneys to fail.”

Children born with Bardet-Beidl syndrome (1 in 100,000 live births) have mutations to one of 14 proteins in this class (and others remain to be identified).

--Hua Jin and Maxense V. Nachury,“Quick Guide: The BBSome,” Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 12, 23 June 2009, Pages R472-R473.

The authors said that the BBSome is “highly conserved”(i.e., unevolved) in all ciliated organisms from single-celled green algae to humans, though absent in plants and fungi.“This pattern of conservation is a signature for proteins that perform fundamental functions in primary cilium assembly,” they explained. Only chordates have an additional four BBS proteins.

[Russell]

appleboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The fossil record is widely recognized. Dating methods include multiple soil samples all around the specimen. Fossils found in mudslides or in shallow quicksand are not that difficult to date. The vast majority of scientists in archaeology and geology would not agree with you.

"Wide" recognition does not constitute the truth

It was widely accepted that no organism could survive in stomach acid...

Very widely...trust me

Enter stage R---> Warren and Marshall

"This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren,--WHO WITH TENACITY-- who with tenacity and a prepared mind --CHALLENGED PREVAILING DOGMAS----challenged prevailing dogmas"

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medici...

Prevailing dogmas like evolution, "dating" of fossils, old age of the earth and Universe....are just that....DOGMA

Evidence is what is required
Not evolutionary wishful thinking

[Russell]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably not. Atheists are rare in prison. Seems that either only religious people commit crimes or only religious people get caught.
But that is not the point. The point is that there is a breed of creationist who are only in it for the money. They sell books, give talks at fundy churches, get donations to their web sites,....
There is no reason for a Christian to have to be dumbed down by literal creationism. Join those of us who have enough faith to reject creationist nonsense and keep our belief in God. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear then you should try using them.

Do you believe in God?

[Ooogah Boogah]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
No that article made precisely the point I wanted.
What other factors drive 'evolution'?
Not mutations
Not genetic drift
Not natural selection
As I have said repeatedly, Darwin's little engine is incapable of innovation... PERIOD
You and your materialistic philosophy are stuffed
Please see:
Gauger A, and Axe D, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway", Biocomplexity, 2011
Excerpt:
"We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth."
Similarly:
"When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied."
Please also refer to for another blow to your shabby evolutionary stance:
Durrett, R and Schmidt D, "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution", Genetics 180 (2008): 1501-1509
Do you care to offer any explanation for this paper below?
Other than argumentum ad hominem?
These authors, below, describe a highly conserved complex of proteins...present in all ciliated organisms, incl humans--->
Exists in every cell of such organisms and is a complex of 8 or more proteins bound together called the BBSome. This protein complex, discovered in 2007, should not be disturbed. Here’s what happens when it mutates:
“A homozygous mutation in any BBSome subunit (except BBIP10) will make you blind, obese and deaf, will obliterate your sense of smell, will make you grow extra digits and toes and cause your kidneys to fail.”
Children born with Bardet-Beidl syndrome (1 in 100,000 live births) have mutations to one of 14 proteins in this class (and others remain to be identified).
--Hua Jin and Maxense V. Nachury,“Quick Guide: The BBSome,” Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 12, 23 June 2009, Pages R472-R473.
The authors said that the BBSome is “highly conserved”(i.e., unevolved) in all ciliated organisms from single-celled green algae to humans, though absent in plants and fungi.“This pattern of conservation is a signature for proteins that perform fundamental functions in primary cilium assembly,” they explained. Only chordates have an additional four BBS proteins.

Evolution is an established fact. Just grow up and deal with it already!

[Russell]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution is an established fact. Just grow up and deal with it already!

Name me ONE fact about evolution....
Just one

Thanks

[Ooogah Boogah]

Russell wrote:

<quoted text>
Name me ONE fact about evolution....
Just one
Thanks

Endogenous retrovirus remnants - YVW!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/secti...

Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

Confirmation:

In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner et al. 1982; Dangel et al. 1995; Svensson et al. 1995; Kjellman et al. 1999; Lebedev et al. 2000; Sverdlov 2000). Figure 4.4.1 shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates (Lebedev et al. 2000). The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism.

The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294; Todaro et al. 1975).

[alan]

appleby wrote:

<quoted text>
The fossil record is widely recognized. Dating methods include multiple soil samples all around the specimen. Fossils found in mudslides or in shallow quicksand are not that difficult to date. The vast majority of scientists in archaeology and geology would not agree with you.

Yawn........Humans have two choices: Creation or evolution. What if a third was more credible?

[One way or another]

The Evo children can't think for themselves. If it ain't cut and paste, its the childish cliques revenge for ya. Arrrr, walk the plank matey.

[Urban Cowboy]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution is an established fact. Just grow up and deal with it already!

Reality check. It's not even a good theory. More like an ideology. That's why you love it so much because it makes you feel good.

[Russell]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>
Endogenous retrovirus remnants - YVW!!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/secti...
Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection.

Truncated to void intense boredom

Heavens!

Its the Monera Fallacy all over again!

Subduction Zone's sore arse is testament to the fact that this subject has been previously debated for shocking days and days ...
ad nauseum....

Go back a few hundred pages and check MazHere posts

SZ was slashed BIG TIME

Marshmallow terminator can never admit he's wrong and move on...

Oh no

Had to go on and on and on

The blood bath was unbearable

SubDud hasn't quite recovered

Even as I write, he's off in bye bye land, having made some excuse about having to sleep

Why does he have to sleep at night for?
He's half asleep all day....

Truth is the stress of MazHere has thoroughly shattered him

AND

It was all over ERVs

Or solo LTVS

Or ERVs

Or ...call 'em what you like

Evidence for evolution they sure ain't!

talkorigins---> yeeechh! Yuk!