Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179741 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#117089 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
By embarrassing yourself.
Since you can provide no intelligent mechanisms nor an objective method of measuring "specified complexity" then self-organization of DNA is not unreasonable since that IS what's observed.
The problem is you are operating on the assumption that "organization" is deliberate. Biology does not operate on that assumption, it operates on the mechanisms of biochemistry. Hence why if something goes wrong in the transcription process they MAY lead to problems, or occasionally even death. That too is observed. But it ain't the rule, as is also observed.
You decided to finally admit you were lying about your 4 years of biology training yet?
Why do you keep saying that DNA can self organize when it can't? You think that chemistry itself has properties to create complexity? Give me an example. As far as DNA repair, that is not the power of simple chemistry, but is a reflection of a complex integrated system of cellular machinery directed by a pre-existing genetic code. I'm asking you how the genetic code got here in the first place. There is no observable capacity of nucleotides to self organize into DNA.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117090 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Hydrogen and Oxygen can "self organize" to produce water. There is no known limit to complexity in the natural world.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117091 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The zygote already contains all of the information required for full development in a much smaller package therefore can be argued is more complex.
It can be argued, but you would be simply completely and totally utterly wrong.

The human has everything the zygote has. Everything. Including its complete genome. Except for the genome the zygote has nothing the human has, except for the cell it's comprised of. The human has more cells, more atoms, more components, more everything.

Therefore according to you biological development is a violation of the SLoT.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And since the aging begins immediately and results in disease, death, and decomposition, a human's life cycle goes along the same time arrow as everything else.
This is consistent with the total energy cycle and food cycle. The Sun provides all the energy that plants convert into energy which animals eat and decomposers finish off. Even thermal vents in the Earth are cooling off over time. The law of entropy is absolute and universal. Biological development no exception.
Except it is an exception. I just demonstrated why above. Entropy DOES eventually take its toll, but not until energy input does not exceed entropic forces. And since the human race is still here, and has been for millenia, entropy is not a problem for human reproduction. If it's not a problem for human reproduction it is insufficient to prevent human evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117092 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA does not "self organize" every day. It always requires pre-existing DNA. As far as nucleotides forming naturally... What does that prove? I'm asking you for a logical explanation as to how DNA could form on its own. A racemic hodgepodge of nucleotides is not a genetic code. How did the first genetic information capable of supporting self replicating life come into existence? As far as RNA being a DNA precursor... That's raw conjecture. You have only dodged the question.
We don't know what the exact conditions were that produced the first life. Valid science admits to not having enough information to propose what those exact conditions were. But intelligent design is pure conjecture with no evidence, as any proposal of abiogenesis would be pure conjecture.

Just guessing isn't science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117093 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Jack Dawkins.
http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/desktop_wallpa...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117094 Feb 13, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hydrogen and Oxygen can "self organize" to produce water. There is no known limit to complexity in the natural world.
Great analogy... since hydrogen and oxygen can form water, nucleotides can self organize into a genetic code... is that your grasp of science?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117095 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. You couldn't care less how DNA got here? You're exposed.
Not at all. The theory of gravity doesn't need to explain the origin of gravity. All it needs is for mass to be here. Since mass is here, the theory works.

Same with evolution. All it needs is for life to be here. Since it IS here then life can and does evolve. Facts.
HTS wrote:
You don't care about truth, only about preserving your precious religion of atheism.
I couldn't care less about atheism. I've not made any theological claims. God could quite possibly exist. It's not my fault you're unable to demonstrate that scientifically.
HTS wrote:
No one has observed DNA evolving. You've only imagine it.
Then you must be the one very special person who is a precise duplicate of your parents with not a single change in your DNA then.

Other than that, it has been scientifically observed.
HTS wrote:
Selective breeding of dogs proves the impossibility of evolution.
Actually it doesn't. It demonstrates that change DOES happen, but that artificial selection only reduces variability. Natural selection does not.
HTS wrote:
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not evolution.
If it develops new traits (which it has) then it's evolution. Just because it hasn't given birth to a giraffe doesn't mean evolution has been falsified. Your arguments are only based on ignorance of the subject.

And what's more we deal with those arguments. You only repeat them without providing a coherent counter-rebuttal.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117096 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you keep saying that DNA can self organize when it can't?
What mechanism prevents DNA from forming naturally?
HTS wrote:
You think that chemistry itself has properties to create complexity? Give me an example.
What mechanism prevents DNA from forming naturally?
HTS wrote:
As far as DNA repair, that is not the power of simple chemistry, but is a reflection of a complex integrated system of cellular machinery directed by a pre-existing genetic code.
What mechanism prevents DNA from forming naturally?
HTS wrote:
I'm asking you how the genetic code got here in the first place.
What mechanism prevents DNA from forming naturally?
HTS wrote:
There is no observable capacity of nucleotides to self organize into DNA.
What mechanism prevents DNA from forming naturally?

If you could please address any of these, thanks.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117097 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
By abmitting the impossibility of abiogenesis, you've just toppled the foundation of Darwinism... that no intelligent design exists.
Sorry, I don't argue for creationist caricatures. "Darwinism" is merely creationist code for atheism. Atheism is irrelevant to the actual theory of evolution.

I have not admitted the impossibility of abiogenesis. If it was impossible, NONE of us would be here.

Duh.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, I'm not buying into your BS. Are you telling me that complexity does not exist? If it does, then I want to hear YOUR DEFINITION of it.
Since I have EXPLICITLY stated previously that it does I have not said it does not. However why are you getting me to define how YOU measure it?

In the case of ocean waves complexity is defined by polygons. More polygons means more complex. A flat ocean is less complex than a turbulent ocean. This complexity is OBJECTIVELY verifiable, and we can use computer models to demonstrate this. Hence too many polygons and not enough processing power means one fried computer.
HTS wrote:
You think that by demanding a mathematical definition of complexity from me that you've erased the problem. Nice try...
I've not erased the problem. I've merely highlighted yours. You claimed complexity equals design. You now have to demonstrate that.

Instead you're trying to get ME to prove YOUR claims, which I don't even accept in the first place due to your inability to demonstrate them.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117098 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you keep saying that DNA can self organize when it can't? You think that chemistry itself has properties to create complexity? Give me an example.
Biological reproduction.
HTS wrote:
As far as DNA repair, that is not the power of simple chemistry, but is a reflection of a complex integrated system of cellular machinery directed by a pre-existing genetic code. I'm asking you how the genetic code got here in the first place.
Abiogenesis is quite irrelevant to how babies are born. It IS there. Therefore we observe it happening.
HTS wrote:
There is no observable capacity of nucleotides to self organize into DNA.
Of course there is. Just go to any maternity hospital.

Of course there COULD be OTHER intelligent mechanisms behind it all.

It's just that you can't provide them.(shrug)

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117099 Feb 13, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Viruses are "non-living" organic matter that interact with living DNA. There ya go!!!
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your base ignorance of biology is embarrassing.
----------
What???!!!

You think that viruses are alive? They lack a key definition of life: the ability to reproduce on their own. They can only reproduce by using DNA in the cells that they hijack.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117100 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Great analogy... since hydrogen and oxygen can form water, nucleotides can self organize into a genetic code... is that your grasp of science?
Both are chemistry. They are both "codes" in EXACTLY the same way.

Therefore it was not an analogy.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117101 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are chemistry. They are both "codes" in EXACTLY the same way.
Therefore it was not an analogy.
Let me get this straight... you think that water is a "code"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117102 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological reproduction.
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is quite irrelevant to how babies are born. It IS there. Therefore we observe it happening.
<quoted text>
Of course there is. Just go to any maternity hospital.
Of course there COULD be OTHER intelligent mechanisms behind it all.
It's just that you can't provide them.(shrug)
What does a maternity ward have to do with DNA self-organizing?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117103 Feb 13, 2013
appleboy wrote:
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Viruses are "non-living" organic matter that interact with living DNA. There ya go!!!
<quoted text>
----------
What???!!!
You think that viruses are alive? They lack a key definition of life: the ability to reproduce on their own. They can only reproduce by using DNA in the cells that they hijack.
I never said viruses are alive. I'm asking you to clarify your point. What do viruses have to do with self organization of DNA?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117104 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've heard all of your debunked recycled arguments. Your incessant parroting of the same stale rhetoric is pointless. You can continue to live in the dark ages and dutifully cling to the primitive thinking of nineteenth century biologists and ignore the facts of molecular biology. Every proposed mechanism of evolutionary transmutation is biologically impossible. If you think humans and apes are related, then try selective breeding on a chimpanzee and see how far you can get. If that's too big of a challenge, try bacteria. You can culture trillions of trillions of organisms in short periods of time. No one has ever produced any evolution.
Now you are just playing dumb. Of course apes and humans cannot interbreed--BECAUSE they are on separate evolutionary paths. If they COULD interbreed, you would say that proves they have not evolved.

Can you explain what the real theory of evolution is? If you don't understand it, how can you possibly argue against it?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117105 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't argue for creationist caricatures. "Darwinism" is merely creationist code for atheism. Atheism is irrelevant to the actual theory of evolution.
I have not admitted the impossibility of abiogenesis. If it was impossible, NONE of us would be here.
Duh.
<quoted text>
Since I have EXPLICITLY stated previously that it does I have not said it does not. However why are you getting me to define how YOU measure it?
In the case of ocean waves complexity is defined by polygons. More polygons means more complex. A flat ocean is less complex than a turbulent ocean. This complexity is OBJECTIVELY verifiable, and we can use computer models to demonstrate this. Hence too many polygons and not enough processing power means one fried computer.
<quoted text>
I've not erased the problem. I've merely highlighted yours. You claimed complexity equals design. You now have to demonstrate that.
Instead you're trying to get ME to prove YOUR claims, which I don't even accept in the first place due to your inability to demonstrate them.
Your definition of complexity is false. Complexity is not defined by the number of polygons. Ocean waves are random and therefore not complex.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117106 Feb 13, 2013
Godlust wrote:
<quoted text>Lets make this as simple as humanly possible......On one side is creation and the other side is evolution both are unanimously false, without question. Human thought of today is no different than humans 1000 years ago. Stuck in a mind rut, sinking hopelessly into an eternity of unbelieveable brainwashing. Only two wrong choices and one right one........Advanced Aliens engineered the human animal and all life on earth. Proof....about as much proof as God exist.

What an odd and uninformed little rant.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117107 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you people ever get tired of this? I mean, time after time dening the obvious and resorting to calling us liars or stupid because you don't have the courage to admit we are right and you have no answer? Because if you had an answer, it would be in the form of a "yes we have observed that and here is the paper". We all know you haven't. Can't you see that something is wrong with your thinking? We have been selectively breeding dogs and farm animals for centuries. Lenski's long term evolution experiments on E-coli are past 50,000 generations. How much evidence (or non-evidence) do you need to convince you? What will it take before you accept the facts?
To be fair, I credit you with making far less obvious errors than HTS makes on a regular basis. It seems clear that he does not want to discuss his differences with the theory of evolution as it actually exists. He continually makes stuff up about evolution, then knocks it down. I'm only surprised that he hasn't yet found a way to include the price of potatoes as an argument against evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117108 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA does not "self organize" every day. It always requires pre-existing DNA.

Exactly my point.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as nucleotides forming naturally... What does that prove? I'm asking you for a logical explanation as to how DNA could form on its own. A racemic hodgepodge of nucleotides is not a genetic code. How did the first genetic information capable of supporting self replicating life come into existence? As far as RNA being a DNA precursor... That's raw conjecture. You have only dodged the question.

I realize how desperate you are to avoid the issue, but facts are facts. DNA is a chemical. Chemicals are atoms. Most chemicals are reactive (combine with other chemicals and atoms). nucleotides are chemicals that are made up (ultimately) of atoms. RNA is very chemically similar to DNA. Double strand RNA is even more similar and is the base of a number of virus.

RNA "stores information" the same way DNA does.
RNA is the basis for some forms of life (if you consider a virus to be alive) or at least is a bridge between life and non-life (whatever that may mean).

That RNA is a precursor to DNA is not "raw conjecture" as you term is, but rather a well supported hypothesis.

For more about RNA/DNA try this simple site:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/amino...

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) 4 hr Serum1915 216,895
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Yep 154,816
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr SoE 48,824
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 7 hr GoTrump 1,047
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web