Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#117588 Feb 16, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Because....engineers are 'designers' and KNOW design when they see it..... As put by an engineer...
Think of that the next time you are hurtling through the skies in a metal object along with hundreds of fellow passengers
Can you remember when you were dropped on your head?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117589 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Jimbo, whenever you get trounced on a subject (which is often, especially in areas of biology) you tend to bring up something something totally different. Such as the speed of light and relativity, or big massive worldwide atheist Jewish science conspiracies.
"which is often", what are you trying to do? Win the contest for understatement of the year?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117590 Feb 16, 2013
Langoliers got the wrong answer to this question that I asked yesterday. Let's see if any of our other Christians can get the right answer on it. The Ten Commandments are often put into court rooms and the picture that accompanies them is of the Commandments carved in stone. Moses was supposed to have taken the Ten Commandments down from Mount Sinai carved into stone. In view of that please answer this question"
Fine, you think you know your Bible better than I do?

Here is a simple challenge. Answer this multiple choice question:

In modern day English what is forbidden by the 10th commandment:

A: Cheeseburgerz.

B. Smacking your old lady around.

C. Shtuping the neighbor lady.

D. Watching Football.
That is the same question that I asked Langoliers.

Can any Christian get it right?
Russell

Australia

#117591 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Snicker.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Snicker.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Me thinks that he does

You Sir, have no clue Sir
--Dr Seuss

You need to have a quick walkabout the recent DNA research

You will find that the higher level organization of DNA due to quaternary structural relationships makes any concept of junk DNA VERY questionable

See

--Arif SM, Vijayan M. Structural diversity based on variability in quaternary association. A case study involving eubacterial and related SSBs. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;922:23-35. doi: 0.1007/978-1-62703-032-8_2. Review. PubMed PMID:
22976175.

"Eubacterial and related single-stranded DNA-binding proteins (SSBs) exhibit considerable variability in their quaternary association in spite of their having the same tertiary fold. The variability involves differences in the orientation of dimers in the tetrameric molecule (or of two-domain subunits in the dimeric molecule) and that of monomers in each dimer. The presence of an additional strand in mycobacterial and related SSBs, which clamps the dimers together, is a major determinant of the mode of quaternary association in them. The variability in quaternary structure has implications to the stability of the protein and possibly to its mode of DNA binding."

Also see:

Bista M, Freund SM, Fersht AR. Domain-domain interactions in full-length p53 and a specific DNA complex probed by methyl NMR spectroscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Sep 25;109(39):15752-6. Epub 2012 Sep 12. PubMed PMID: 22972749;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3465378.

"In our experiments, TET appeared loosely attached to the p53C–DNA conglomerate and, because of its flexibility, is unlikely to contribute directly structurally to the formation of the complex. The role of the domain is, rather, to act as a tether for p53C domains, enabling cooperative DNA binding by p53C domains. Such an arrangement would permit p53 to accommodate different spacers between the half-sites without breaking the tetramer."

AND:

De Marco V, Gillespie PJ, Li A, Karantzelis N, Christodoulou E, Klompmaker R, van Gerwen S, Fish A, Petoukhov MV, Iliou MS, Lygerou Z, Medema RH, Blow JJ, Svergun DI, Taraviras S, Perrakis A. Quaternary structure of the human Cdt1-Geminin complex regulates DNA replication licensing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A. 2009 Nov 24;106(47):19807-12. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905281106. Epub 2009 Nov 11. PubMed PMID: 19906994; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2775996.

"The Cdt1-Geminin complex thus likely functions as a conformational switch, where the equilibrium between defined quaternary states regulates activity."

Its early days...

But conclusively..

Evo-tards are wrong...again
Russell

Australia

#117592 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. My knowledge of God is no better than yours.
Or vice versa.
Which makes sense when you consider the fact that (if it exists) it's an invisible magic dude that exists on another plane of existence which you need to die first to get to. And that's if it lets you in.
That's precisely what I mean about your NOT knowing God

You don't need to die first to know God

He died so you COULD know Him...here...today...right now

Sin and God can't exist together

In your sin...

That's the state we are all in...

In your sin...you can't KNOW God

You may know about God

But you CANT have a relationship with Him

And relationship is what its all about

Jesus's death was that gateway..passage..opening..
For us ALL to have a relationship with God

Remember how the curtain to the Holiest of Holy's tore in half from top to bottom?

Perhaps you don't...

Because Jesus BORE our sins on Himself

He became OUR sin....your's and mine...although quite clearly...your's are much worse than mine....

I jest..

Then, since the penalty for sin is death..

Our penalty has been paid

IN FULL

That leaves us free...

Free from sin, death and free to have that relationship with Him that was disrupted in the Garden
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus had no reason to die anyway. It was a sham. There was no sacrifice. You cannot sacrifice an immortal. Your god is just fond of blood-letting. That's it.(shrug)
Yea, but, yea, but, yea, but...

Jesus became man

As prophesied in the Scriptures centuries before His birth

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117593 Feb 16, 2013
And Russell still does not know how to quote properly.

Typical creatard fail.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117594 Feb 16, 2013
Russell, now let me get this straight. Your infallible god mad a "perfect" creation that went bad and not only did he have to punish the people that he made that slipped, he had to punish there children too. All of them had to be punished forever because someone ate from a tree that he put into his perfect creation. Now of course if he was all powerful so why couldn't he have left the tree out of his creation? Well at any rate after punishing everyone who ever lived and died forever he hit on the brilliant idea of sacrificing himself to himself for his own mistakes.

Isn't that the gist of it Rusty?
Russell

Australia

#117595 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, a Jumbo Jet is just like planet Earth now that you think about it.
And this is precisely the problem with ID. Every time I ask for evidence of ID they ALWAYS give me an example of something made by animals here on Earth, mostly humans. Computers. Cars. Planes. Mobile phones. Which is fine for an analogy to help explain a concept. We get the analogy. We do. But what we DON'T get is DIRECT EVIDENCE of "design" by this enigmatic "designer" of theirs. Instead they just keep on giving us more analogies of what humans have made. Never the mechanisms or evidence of their alleged "designer".
You have been provided with heaps of evidence of design

Only SOME has been presented to you...

But you have hand-waved it away with your usual blithe smug retorts

But since I am long suffering....not really

Here is SOME...very brief evidence AGAIN!
Firstly,
http://creation.com/divining-design

The Adenosine Triphosphate synthase
http://creation.com/design-in-living-organism...

The bacterial flagellum motor

The blood clotting cascade

MAC

Nano-scale aligning tool used in the assembly of actin filaments
http://creation.com/actin-filament-assembly

And please see for your reading pleasure, unrelaed to the design evidence, more on the censorship and discrimination extended to scientists who are creationists
http://creation.com/nature-peer-review

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117597 Feb 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not meaningless. Your opinion is very important. I am not interested in hearing the "official party line" as I've heard that a million times. Your true and honest opinion is really the only thing that matters....

I believe 100% that God created the universe as it written in the Bible. Of course I don't know exactly how He did it. He has always existed and comes from another universe that we are not aware of.

...So what am I asking? I am asking you to tell me what you believe the origin of this universe is. All the space, matter, and energy and all the billions of galaxies and stars; time and space, matter and energy, from the beginning of time. If you want, back before life began, back to the big bang, back to the time what all space, time, matter, and energy were all contained in a signularity a million times smaller than the head of a pin. You can also believe that if you want. But where did that pinpoint come from?
Did even that always exist?

...Was there any planning or purpose or design or intelligence involved in the creation of this universe?
Again, or me, of course this is easy and satisfying. God created the universe...
I just have a very hard time accepting your, "I don't know". That is not an opinion, that is you just telling me what the current state of the science is but I already know that.
Thanks for the post, it looks like a sincere attempt - but it seems you cannot quite "get" the point that its possible to have no commitment to a viewpoint when there is simply insufficient information to deserve it. Its not a party line - its just plain old rational skeptical thinking.

So again I can only repeat that I have no idea why there is anything rather than nothing and that would INCLUDE "God" if God exists. Your answer may be satisfying to you, but it really just begs the question rather than answering it, and is no more satisfying than saying "there was always a universe (multiverse, inflaton field, whatever...always "something" rather than "nothing"). You just decided that the "something" had to be an infinite intelligence!

So let me try another approach.

It would not surprise me at all if there is no God. It looks very likely.

It would not surprise me much if there is a "God" of some sort, who set the physical universe in motion, perhaps.

But I have no doubt, unless a deceptive trick is being played on us all, that the universe developed, life developed, and then evolved, in a way that is not too different in general terms from the latest scientific understanding. Its certainly imperfect but its the BEST shot at truth we have.

It would GREATLY, HUGELY, surprise me if one of the mythological constructions built around the idea of God or Gods from our early creation stories turned out to be true. The evidence of the universe that we observe quite simply does not support the notions of Genesis, nor any other early mythology except at coincidental points.

I know you are here trying to argue otherwise, by fishing through the gaps in our knowledge, or by trying to change the standard interpretations of our scientific research. But its a failed project. Sooner or later your sources have to stoop to lying, quote mining, selectively ignoring evidence, and on top of that, coming up with mutually inconsistent "special pleading" alternative answers to various points that do not even work together.

Science on the other hand has developed a framework that is accommodating more and more pieces of the puzzle in a logically and empirically consistent way.

Perhaps not jumping to a conclusion is a behavior that is hard for humans to learn. Yet this is what is demanded by any search for truth. As a Buddhist might say, you cannot add any more to a cup that is already full.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117598 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Russell still does not know how to quote properly.
Typical creatard fail.
You just keep begging for drip feeds...
One way or another

United States

#117600 Feb 17, 2013
Poor Evo children, they use cut and paste, along with trash talk and that's it. They bring nothing of value. They do bring constant fighting.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117601 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, now let me get this straight. Your infallible god mad a "perfect" creation that went bad and not only did he have to punish the people that he made that slipped, he had to punish there children too. All of them had to be punished forever because someone ate from a tree that he put into his perfect creation. Now of course if he was all powerful so why couldn't he have left the tree out of his creation? Well at any rate after punishing everyone who ever lived and died forever he hit on the brilliant idea of sacrificing himself to himself for his own mistakes.
Isn't that the gist of it Rusty?
SZ... As with every atheist, when you get pinned you predictably vent your contempt for God, making religious assumptions that you cannot make. In your consummate arrogance you fail to see that your entire worldview is founded on your RELIGION

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117602 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of pure unadulterated BS. I've been asking for science, not evo--babbling.

Again you dodge. You cannot respond to the facts nor answer reasonable questions so you try to escape with an insult.

If you want to use ID as an abbreviation for Creationism, that is fine, but don't pretend it is something else.

If you cannot define your terms that is your problem.

If you want to try to disprove my statements it is up to you to try to do so.

I reiterate: Few scientists believe in literal creationism as it is presented in the bible. What is called ID is nothing other than creationism. That does not mean that many don't have some spiritual beliefs or believe there is some cause behind it.

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have to define your terms.
Physicists acknowledge and attest to physical evolution.
Chemists acknowledge and attest to chemical evolution.
Biologists acknowledge and attest to biological evolution.
Few scientists believe in literal creationism as it is presented in the bible. What is called ID is nothing other than creationism. That does not mean that many don't have some spiritual beliefs or believe there is some cause behind it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117603 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. NDT has made predictions that invariably FAIL...the hallmark of a also hypothesis.
Examples:

1. The failed junk DNA debacle
2. The false paradigm of genetic determinism
3. The utter failure to propose any viable theory of abiogenesis.
4. Genetic entropy
These are facts that cannot logically be refuted. Al you can do is vary attempt to set up smokescreens.

1. What are you talking about? How is non-protein coding DNA a debacle?

2. Genes determine much of who we are and what strengths and weakness we have. How it that "false"?

3. Abiogenesis is a field of chemistry. Incidently there are a number of viable hypotheses of abiogenesis. It will take more research to discern which is correct.

4. Genetic entropy does not exist. This has been refuted and no more needs refutation than the existence of unicorns or tree sprites.

So your "facts" are easily refuted and can be easily checked using scientific references.#4 is particularly disturbing as this notion was stillborn. It was LITERALLY refuted, IN PRINT, BEFORE the book (which is and was unsupported by any research) was released to the public. The book was a pop book that has been the source of considerable laughter in the biological science community.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117604 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Comparing NDT to the theory of gravity is worn out BS popularized by the likes of Dawkins. The incessant parroting of propaganda doesn't make it so.

Dawkins did not originate the comparison of evolution to gravitation. The analogy is a good one regardless of your liking it or not. I notice you just try to swat at it and can (as usual) provide not one iota of factual information against it.

The weakness of your unsupported assertions can be seen by all. Unable to do better?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117605 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The reason it brings fighting is simple...Darwinism is nothing more than the religion of atheism cleverly packaged as "science".

And yet there millions of scientist who are religious.

The fighting is due to religious fear. Fundamentalists are afraid that science refutes their religion. There is some grounds to this fear as science DOES refute literalism. But for those who have a deeper understanding than literalism, science is no threat.

Challenge: Name a major field of science that does not support evolution in a major way.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117606 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to you and Russell for bringing science to this board.

What post # please? I read them all (except most of yours) and I missed it. All I have seen from them are religious notions and fear.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117607 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As usual, you don't scientifically refute anything...
...and please elaborate how genetic entropy was "dead before it hit the floor"... Are you telling me that there is no genetic entropy? What is Natural selection doing with over 100 mutations per generation. None of your ramblings can refute scientific observation.

You have been shown. You choose to ignore it.

You will choose to ignore this post as well, so you might as well not bother to read it. Just skim it and post insults as is typical of you.


"genetic entropy" is a notion.
It is not supported by ANY scientific research.
One article alleging to support it was shown to be fraudulent
It was refuted in a article before the book was published.
There exists a LARGE body of research showing that (absent inbreeding) the genome naturally tends to become stronger over time.
Human NEED at least 100 mutations per generation to continue to evolve.

There is no genetic entropy (absent inbreeding, continuous exposure to radiation,....).

Genetic entropy is a false concept (lie). It was never intended as a true scientific hypothesis but rather as pablum for the fundy masses. Real scientists do not publish serious new ideas in pop books. They research them or have other researchers research them. They have their results published in peer review science journals. They do not have other researcher publish fraudulent computer simulations.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#117608 Feb 17, 2013
This post is so wrong we need to go through it blow by blow
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this before. Non-coding doesn't mean "non-functional"...

No one said it was non-functional. When we started to study DNA we (shocking) did not know everything about it all at once.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> ENCODE found that at least 80% of human DNA is functional,

Incorrect. It found that "as much as 80% of DNA could be functional at some level"
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> not the 2% that was being peddled by atheists for three decades.

Incorrect. I don't ever remember 2%. And that was not "peddled by athesits", but was the best understanding of DNA know to genetics at the time.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The junk DNA paradigm is yet another abject failure of evolutionary theory.

"Junk DNA" was an expression, not science. It is SCIENCE (genetics) that works on DNA, NOT evolution.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Now that the facts are undeniable, all you can do is lie and pretend that whatever is observed is "predicted" by NDT.

Again, you are confusing atheism, science, evolution, genetics into one concept. That this is not reality is self evident.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117612 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm just saying, prove what you claim.
This God being so powerful and almighty cant even appear in the flesh.....never? That's just one example of the human animals obsession with religion. Nobody has ever come back from the grave. No afterlife, zero God/Jesus sightings. Humans have had 2000+ years to perfect the "Godbot" society. All that time to brainwash, alter history, rewrite the Bible and create artifacts to create the allusion to a point it seems real to the believers..........Don't worry, one day with the advances of human technology they will explore deep space and the Bible will become obsolete.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min 15th Dalai Lama 169,884
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Darsey 95,384
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 3 hr Darsey 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 3 hr Davidjayjordan 100
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The “cumulative evidence” problem Mon jla2w 30
E equals MC squared Jun 17 Jim Ryan 15