Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Mugwump

UK

#117289 Feb 14, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
They know, but they won't address what they can't defend, but you already know that.
So - pet psychology - made it to the science books as you predicted yet ?

But I know, you won't address what you can't defend, but we already knew that
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117290 Feb 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain how ERVs make an individual less fit
ERVs are supposedly worthless segments of DNA that replaced normal functional segments.
One way or another

United States

#117291 Feb 14, 2013
It seems the scientists have all kinds of excuses for the morons claiming c14 dating.

How is it they aren't smart enough to figure out how to test c14 dating, with definitive results? Because the truth doesn't sell near as good as lies.

Scientists must hate learning new things, because every lie stymies the next possible discovery.

Stupid morons

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#117292 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of pure BS. Please provide scientific proof that cambrian lifeforms had ancestors in the proterozoic period. Bedtime stories do not constitute science.
Here are some pretty pictures of precambrian life for you.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Prec...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117293 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERVs are supposedly worthless segments of DNA that replaced normal functional segments.
No, ERV's are usually worthless segments of DNA. The chances that they could be utile are small but real. The fact that they are sometimes of use was discovered by .... come on ... one guess.... you can do it..

The fact that ERV's could be of use was discovered by evolutionary biologists you dolt.

And they don't replace normally functional segments. Who told you that?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117294 Feb 14, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some pretty pictures of precambrian life for you.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/Prec...
That is evidence. Since HST is a true creatard he will either ignore it or deny it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117295 Feb 14, 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
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Please stop dodging and answer the question. What do viruses have to do with the self organization of DNA? Evo-babbling doesn't cut it.
--------

You seem to have your own very personal meaning for "self organization" that you are reluctant to share with others. Do you have a problem with the idea that the nucleotides from the virus can add to or change the function of the genes they are affecting?
One way or another

United States

#117296 Feb 14, 2013
What I know about pet psychology I won't give away for a huge corporation to steal from me, especially since finding out that no matter if I have a patent here, any corporation can go to other countries and patent it there, undermining the price till they just put you out of business and take all your information that made the product sell in the first place.

That's why I don't give out the other info, but then the morons here just don't have anything worthwhile, you know, like a thought all their own, even after years of there childish cliques nonsense.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117297 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>For the last time, a baby is not created by self organization of DNA. Pre-existing DNA is required. I'm asking you to point to any observation in chemistry that suggests that raw materials can spontaneously form DNA, or even come close to such an endpoint.
Whoever said that babies poofed into existence?

It is a given that we don't know what the original conditions were for the first life. The conditions that existed on earth 3.5 billion years ago can only be guessed at. We only know that those conditions no longer exist.

Could you tell us what those conditions were 3.5 billion years ago and why they could not have produced life?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117298 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you bother posting links that you don't understand? Do you think I'm going to be fooled? RNA cannot self-organize. If you can show me scientific proof that nucleotides can randomly self-assemble into a purposeful genetic code I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong. Until then, please dispense with your attempted smokescreens.
Whoever said that RNA "self organizes"? We don't know what the first conditions were for DNA and RNA to work together. Those conditions no longer exist. But we do know that life comes from life.

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Religion DOES address the origin of life, but cannot address it using science.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117299 Feb 14, 2013
One way or another wrote:
What I know about pet psychology I won't give away for a huge corporation to steal from me, especially since finding out that no matter if I have a patent here, any corporation can go to other countries and patent it there, undermining the price till they just put you out of business and take all your information that made the product sell in the first place.
That's why I don't give out the other info, but then the morons here just don't have anything worthwhile, you know, like a thought all their own, even after years of there childish cliques nonsense.
So it was a commercial decision to not release your findings and therefore continue the mental suffering of pets all around the world.

It's people like you thank support a fully corrupt congress with your selfishness.

Bazinga !!
Alien outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#117300 Feb 14, 2013
Lowell Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
But, no evidence. Nobody cares about your claims. We only care about evidence. If you don't present evidence, everything you say is dismissed as the ramblings of a mad man.
Right back at the creationists bible babbling.....no evidence. Humans cant take the fact they have been tricked and lied to about human existence. To smart and educated they think. If humans believe a God created everything.....brainwashed and clueless. Or, that humans are half ape its the same outcome. Again, scientist know the truth and they know the primitive human animal will never accept the truth. So, go pray or drag the knuckles......This "madman" will be leading the way watching the human animal try to find God and bones......We are not the ones praying to a ghost(bible character)....who's crazy?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#117301 Feb 14, 2013
Alien outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Right back at the creationists bible babbling.....no evidence. Humans cant take the fact they have been tricked and lied to about human existence. To smart and educated they think. If humans believe a God created everything.....brainwashed and clueless. Or, that humans are half ape its the same outcome. Again, scientist know the truth and they know the primitive human animal will never accept the truth. So, go pray or drag the knuckles......This "madman" will be leading the way watching the human animal try to find God and bones......We are not the ones praying to a ghost(bible character)....who's crazy?
Mmmmm....you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117302 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the point. If natural selection can cull out less fit individuals, how did ERVs become incorporated in species?

ERVs implant into the DNA. That is how they are incorporated into the species.

ERV remnants in the genome are then subject to the same forces that drive selection in the rest of the genome.

ERVs tend to "fade" over time due to these selective pressures.

This is not advanced concepts in evolution. This is evolution 101. The fact that you do not understand simple concepts like this reinforces what we know about you, and what you don't know about evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117303 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are behaving like a spineless atheist... Posting a link that you haven't read, thinking that in so doing you will refute my argument. If you can't articulate what you believe,, don't bother attempting to set up smokescreens. There is no proof of your baseless claims.

Translation: This argument crushes my viewpoint so I will have to try to deflect away with an ad hominem.

Transparent.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117304 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. Where did you come up with the ridiculous notion that cilia are ancestral to hair?

Why don't you look things up so you can at least not appear to be so obviously stupid?

I know I am hard on you, but it only takes a couple of seconds to google something like this.

PLEASE do so!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117305 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>like a good little DarwinBot, you posted links that you don't understand, naively believing that I'll take the bait. I'm well familiar with your tactics. Your worn out tactics don't work.

You consider INFORMATION and SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to be BAIT?

I understand the links just fine. I am guessing that you didn't and want to run away from the subject. You can't deal with the fact that real science refute everything you say. You also keep trying to hide your ignorance of science under a facade of "asking simple questions".

Find, I will nail you just as hard to the next cross.

Proceed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117306 Feb 14, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Drop a nail in a lake. H20 is coded to oxidise nails.

Brilliant!

Sometimes I do more heavy lifting than necessary. Nice short reply that cuts to the heart.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117307 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS.

It is very transparent that you have no response when you answer in this fashion. Didn't you ever have to take a basic psychology class?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117308 Feb 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERVs are supposedly worthless segments of DNA that replaced normal functional segments.

No. You are making some presumptions here.

First you assume that there is a "replacement". The ERV DNA segments are 'inserted', which may be destructive but not necessarily.

Second you assume that the coding moved or replaced was functional to begin with. Maybe it was and maybe it was not.

Third, the DNA itself may not be worthless. A small percentage of ERVs either have or acquire functioning (possibly through mutation).

In all, ERVs work very similar to mutations. They add coding, but may also take it away. Once inserted in the genome they are subject to the same sorts of changes any other segment of DNA would be exposed to..... INCLUDING future ERV insertions!

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) 2 min Into The Night 57,951
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 24 min lightbeamrider 1,798
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 27 min Timmee 159,252
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Eagle 12 27,254
News Intelligent Design Education Day Sun replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sun replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web