Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117129 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Let me get this straight... you think that water is a "code"?
"Code" is an analogy. It works very well in computer technology, but, as every analogy eventually breaks down, it eventually fails to define chemistry. But the analogy of code applies equally to water as it does to DNA.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117130 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What does lactose intolerance have to do with man evolving from a worm?

Do you know nothing at all about evolution?

Never mind. Rhetorical question.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117131 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
By abmitting the impossibility of abiogenesis, you've just toppled the foundation of Darwinism... that no intelligent design exists.

"No intelligent design exists."

Humm......

Neither the Fact nor the Theory of Evolution are dependent upon where life first came from. Biological evolution only applies to living populations. There are areas of study for chemical evolution and physical evolution but they have different definitions and work in different ways.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117132 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Viruses interact with the chemistry of DNA. That's how they replicate. Some viruses that infect germ cells can cause permanent changes to following generations, contributing to evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117133 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your definition of complexity is false. Complexity is not defined by the number of polygons. Ocean waves are random and therefore not complex.
Random and complex refers to two different concepts.

Random can be simple or complex.

Complex can be intentional or random.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117134 Feb 13, 2013
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. You think that by demanding a mathematical definition of complexity from me that you've erased the problem. Nice try...

Complexity is a human concept. Like 'big' or 'cold' it can be defined but only in relationship to something else. It is a relative term. I am big compared to my son but small compared to Shaquille O'Neal.

Am I complex? There is an amoeba that has DNA over 200 times longer than ours (670,000,000,000 base pairs). So, by some measure we are less complex than an amoeba. There is a Japanese flower that has DNA 50 times as long as ours. If its DNA was stretched out it would be over 300 feet long! Ours would be 6 feet.

So, as a concept 'complexity' is something we can understand, but it is not operational nor fixed and cannot be used as a scientific term.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117135 Feb 13, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Viruses interact with the chemistry of DNA. That's how they replicate. Some viruses that infect germ cells can cause permanent changes to following generations, contributing to evolution.
Having healthy and strong germ cells is mandatory to produce a viable zygote, so why would harmful viral-infected egg/sperm cells be considered more fit (positive selection) versus ones without retroviral DNA?

Apoptosis is an accepted biological phenomenon, so why wouldn’t most germ cells with viral-infected DNA be eliminated?

“Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, is a normal component of the development and health of multicellular organisms. Cells die in response to a variety of stimuli and during apoptosis they do so in a controlled, regulated fashion … The latter occurs when T-cells recognise damaged or virus infected cells and initiate apoptosis in order to prevent damaged cells from becoming neoplastic (cancerous) or virus-infected cells from spreading the infection.”

Why and by what mechanism do you propose a lack of T-cell mediated immune response to infection in a germ cell?

And why only ERVs?

Why not other viruses?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117136 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity is a human concept. Like 'big' or 'cold' it can be defined but only in relationship to something else. It is a relative term. I am big compared to my son but small compared to Shaquille O'Neal.
Am I complex? There is an amoeba that has DNA over 200 times longer than ours (670,000,000,000 base pairs). So, by some measure we are less complex than an amoeba. There is a Japanese flower that has DNA 50 times as long as ours. If its DNA was stretched out it would be over 300 feet long! Ours would be 6 feet.
So, as a concept 'complexity' is something we can understand, but it is not operational nor fixed and cannot be used as a scientific term.
Evolutionists routinely shy away from origins of life because there is no way life could have "poofed" itself into existence via naturalistic means

Stating that the concept of abiogenesis does not affect evolution.

Well, why not start the discussion with the 'first' cell

Here it is....

It could be mycoplasma..

Small --relatively--genome

Coding only for what it needs

Its our ancestor

By what process does this cell develop the DNA for hair, eyes, teeth, bones and a pancreas?

Where does the additional DNA come from?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117137 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Let me get this straight... you think that water is a "code"?
You think that H2O is not a code? Is H2O water? Or is a water a combination of elements that we have arbitrarily labelled hydrogen and oxygen which we then in turn put in a more shorthand form in the code of H2O? EXACTLY the same as we did with the chemicals adenine, cytosine, guanine and thyimine as ACGT? Are they not chemicals? Are hydrogen and oxygen not also chemical elements? Do none of these react with each other via chemical processes?

Also keep in mind here that I'm not arguing against deliberate intent. You are more than free to propose an intelligent agent being responsible for any and all of these things.

It's just we've been waiting for 6 months for you to even tell us what those mechanisms are, much less provide any evidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117138 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What does a maternity ward have to do with DNA self-organizing?
Well if you don't know what a maternity ward is it's where babies are born. As a result of self-organizing DNA.

At least apparently self-organizing. It is always possible that there may be an intelligence behind the whole process.

If so then can you please provide the scientific mechanisms responsible and the evidence for them?

Thanks in advance for never bothering.

I now permit you to whine like a beeyach some more for not accepting your IDC claims at face value.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117139 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dude
Don't deliberately be an ass
Allelic rearrangements of EXISTING genes on EXISTING DNA is not evolution

I suppose you like to argue that hypervariable bits on immunoglobulins are evolution too?

Not so, Don
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it doesn't. It demonstrates that change DOES happen, but that artificial selection only reduces variability. Natural selection does not.
That is PRECISELY what happens with natural selection
You lose variability
Furry vs short haired individuals in colder climes....eventual loss of the shorter furred varieties

VIA SELECTION

Likewise for blind Indus river dolphins
Wingless beetles
Tall, pale Scandinavians

Natural selection can only act on existing alleles
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The so called 'new' traits are already part of the existing gene pool

This is punnet square genetics, Don
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And what's more we deal with those arguments. You only repeat them without providing a coherent counter-rebuttal.
Yes
God dunnit with Jewish magic

Or some such nonsense....

That's your rebuttal!

Where's the evolution of the MAC, like you promised?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117140 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your definition of complexity is false. Complexity is not defined by the number of polygons. Ocean waves are random and therefore not complex.
The computer disagrees. The computer blew up, especially once we introduced a script to constantly change the shape of the virtual ocean. The definition is valid. It just so happens that the definition applies to physical shapes rather than biological phenomena. I also dispute the claim that randomness does not produce complexity. If you consider these forces to be "random" then randomness can indeed produce complexity.

Although I would also argue that these phenomena aren't truly "random" anyway, but that does not mean that they were designed either. Your problem is that you are stuck on the false dichotomy that any lack of intelligent input means "random". Hydrogen and oxygen coming together to form water on your windowsill in the morning is NOT random. If it WERE random on another day you would have gold. Or fairies. Or eggs. Or cyanide.

(Okay so the cyanide might be your better half coming to his senses, so forget that one)

Keep in mind I also just provided Cowboy with a definition of complexity which DID apply to biological phenomena.

So now I have provided you with TWO different definitions of complexity, both of which are valid and demonstrated such by supplied examples. Note, not analogies, actual examples which can be verified in the real world.

Your turn.

You need to provide us with the objectively verifiable definition of "complexity" which you are using as your yardstick.

Until then you have no basis for your claims and have no basis from which to dismiss my examples.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117141 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have entirely dodged the question as to how DNA could have self organized. Just because nucleotides are chemicals that can combine with other molecules doesn't justify the belief that a purposeful genetic code can self organize.
You can't justify purpose.

What's the purpose of life?

We were made to die then worship God on fluffy little clouds and playing the harp? What in biology points to this conclusion?
HTS wrote:
The hypothesis of RNA being a precursor to DNA is not well supported by experimental science. It is raw conjecture based on evolutionary assumptions. If you contend that it's well supported, then let's see a logical pathway as to how RNA could gradually transform to DNA through naturalistic processes. Even if you imagine such to be the case, how did RNA self-organize from a hodgepodge of nucleotides. I would respectfully appreciate it if you would stop dodging the question and provide a clear answer.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

If it does then the theory of gravity MUST explain the origin of mass.

If it does then the germ theory of disease MUST explain the origin of germs.

Which uh, would probably also come under the banner of abiogenesis.

So come on. Tell us that the theory of gravity utterly fails due to its inability to explain the emergence of the universe.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117142 Feb 13, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there's not enough information to establish how life started. Maybe there was a god and he/she/it decided that the best plan involved goo-to-you. But ANY answer is premature without reasonable evidence.
NO! God didn't do it that way! God COULDN'T do it that way! Because evolution is impossible!

>:-(

Ergo God has limits.

In which case I would very much like to know precisely what those limits are and how they were determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

And probably, God would too.

He could start first by demonstrating that this "God" entity actually exists.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117143 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you don't know what a maternity ward is it's where babies are born. As a result of self-organizing DNA.
At least apparently self-organizing. It is always possible that there may be an intelligence behind the whole process.
If so then can you please provide the scientific mechanisms responsible and the evidence for them?
Thanks in advance for never bothering.
I now permit you to whine like a beeyach some more for not accepting your IDC claims at face value.
When God said go forth and multiply He was of course referring to cloning

No, Don, no

Its quite simple

Here's a new windmill to tilt at

Mother 25, 000 genes
Father 25,000 genes

or 3 billion base pairs

Since your evo-god Ayala said that humans today have an average heterozygousity of 6.7 per cent

What this means is that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the genes have different alleles, menaing 1,675 heterzygous loci overall...

Any single human could produce a VAST number of of different sperm or egg cells

2 to the power of 1675
Or 10 to the power of 504

The number of atoms on the Universe is 'only' 10 to the power of 80.....

EXTREMELY SMALL BY COMPARISON

Even your evo-god Ayala has stated that most of the variation in populations arises from PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES

Here are two pictures that may interest you

Warning

They're not windmills.....

http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol29...

http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol29...

As you can see

Mum and Dad are mid-brown
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117144 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity is a human concept. Like 'big' or 'cold' it can be defined but only in relationship to something else. It is a relative term. I am big compared to my son but small compared to Shaquille O'Neal.
Am I complex? There is an amoeba that has DNA over 200 times longer than ours (670,000,000,000 base pairs). So, by some measure we are less complex than an amoeba. There is a Japanese flower that has DNA 50 times as long as ours. If its DNA was stretched out it would be over 300 feet long! Ours would be 6 feet.
So, as a concept 'complexity' is something we can understand, but it is not operational nor fixed and cannot be used as a scientific term.
Interesting side-point, according to Russ evolution is only possible within the limits of the genome. Apparently that somehow stops evolution. When I pointed out the problem of Adam & Eve and lots of in the fam nookynook eventually leads to unrecoverable cancers and wiping out humanity he claimed that they were "special" humans who had "extra" DNA that allowed enough evolution to account for our current biodiversity.

I pointed out to him then that he just said an amoeba was capable of evolving into a human.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117145 Feb 13, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists routinely shy away from origins of life because there is no way life could have "poofed" itself into existence via naturalistic means
Stating that the concept of abiogenesis does not affect evolution.
Well, why not start the discussion with the 'first' cell
Here it is....
It could be mycoplasma..
Small --relatively--genome
Coding only for what it needs
Its our ancestor
By what process does this cell develop the DNA for hair, eyes, teeth, bones and a pancreas?
Where does the additional DNA come from?
Mutation. Duplication. Imperfect replication. Results in variation. Observed.

But don't worry, the theory of gravity is totally bunk because it doesn't explain the origin of the universe.

You said so.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117146 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ: I'm well familiar with your cute little retort. When presented with any quote that is an assault on your religion, you simply pull the "quote mining card" out of your hip pocket rather than answer the question.

A quote mine is, at this day in age, fairly easy to prove. I have demonstrated that many people have used quote mines in the past by providing the larger context of the quote. That is normally easy and objective. I am not sure why, but the "evolutionists" rarely get accused of quote mining and it is even more rare that those accusations are proven. It is much more common for creationists to quote mine in my experience.

I admit that could be confirmation bias on my part, but I am pretty sure of this.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117147 Feb 13, 2013
Russell wrote:
ude
Don't deliberately be an ass
We leave that to creationists.
Russell wrote:
Allelic rearrangements of EXISTING genes on EXISTING DNA is not evolution
I suppose you like to argue that hypervariable bits on immunoglobulins are evolution too?
Not so, Don
We are all born with around 125 to 175 mutations that neither of our parents have. Even Cowboy agrees. Now we have more "pre-existing" DNA.
Russell wrote:
That is PRECISELY what happens with natural selection
You lose variability
Furry vs short haired individuals in colder climes....eventual loss of the shorter furred varieties
VIA SELECTION
So furry AND short you say? Sounds like quite a variation to me. Sure, the loss of one or the other is an EVENTUAL loss of DNA variation. By which time the species *may* have already diverged anyway, such as we see in ring species. Or another possibility is that the shorter haired ones simply headed south and both populations still exist. Either way, whatever populations there are, as long as they can survive, and as long as they can do so successsfully, and as long as they too are born with new DNA like the vast majority of most other organisms on this planet, then we WILL eventually end up with more variation again.

Of course the other possibility is that the species may go extinct.

Ya know, like 99% of all the species that have ever lived in the history of this entire planet.
Russell wrote:
Likewise for blind Indus river dolphins
Wingless beetles
Tall, pale Scandinavians
Natural selection can only act on existing alleles
Or teeth in chickens. Or eyeballs or eye sockets on blind cave animals.
Russell wrote:
The so called 'new' traits are already part of the existing gene pool
This is punnet square genetics, Don
Except we observe new DNA coming into existence.
Russell wrote:
Yes
God dunnit with Jewish magic
Or some such nonsense....
That's your rebuttal!
Hey, don't blame me. It's YOUR nonsense.
Russell wrote:
Where's the evolution of the MAC, like you promised?
Way back on page one of your other thread.

Been waiting for you to address it for 5 months.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117148 Feb 13, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
When God said go forth and multiply He was of course referring to cloning
No, Don, no
Its quite simple
Here's a new windmill to tilt at
Mother 25, 000 genes
Father 25,000 genes
or 3 billion base pairs
Since your evo-god Ayala said that humans today have an average heterozygousity of 6.7 per cent
What this means is that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the genes have different alleles, menaing 1,675 heterzygous loci overall...
Any single human could produce a VAST number of of different sperm or egg cells
2 to the power of 1675
Or 10 to the power of 504
The number of atoms on the Universe is 'only' 10 to the power of 80.....
EXTREMELY SMALL BY COMPARISON
Even your evo-god Ayala has stated that most of the variation in populations arises from PREVIOUSLY EXISTING GENES
Here are two pictures that may interest you
Warning
They're not windmills.....
http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol29...
http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol29...
As you can see
Mum and Dad are mid-brown
And I still can't see any proposed mechanisms for design which is what my post was about.

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) 17 min Richardfs 48,556
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Snap 216,714
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 8 hr Timmee 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Into The Night 23,503
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 hr scientia potentia... 154,689
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web