Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,454

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." Full Story
HTS

Williston, ND

#117659 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything in our DNA has functionality or it wouldn't be there. You choose to be a one sided idiot. Nothing you parrot has value because of your one sidedness, just as the rest of your childish clique.
The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117660 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hand waving
Blithe
Smug
Hand waving
There is NO evolutionary proposal for the mechanism of the DESIGN of the ATP-ase
Evo-tards ....like you...will retort.... as you have a multitude of time before
*....small screeching falsetto...*
"That proves nothing..
That just means that God diddit with Jewish magic...
Whinge.....whine....howl"
Give it up, the Dude
Hey, Rusty got one right. There are no creatard articles about how the DESIGN of ATp-ase occurred

There are quite a few articles on the evolution of ATP-ase:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

Perhaps if he did not frame his questions idiotically he would get answers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117661 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.
Why do you keep making this bogus claim?

I would like to see an article from a reliable source that says this.

You don't link such an article because you can't.

Another fail for HTS.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117662 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
....
. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional.
.......
.
Want to back up this claim.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117663 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep making this bogus claim?
I would like to see an article from a reliable source that says this.
You don't link such an article because you can't.
Another fail for HTS.
Ahh, sorry you got there before me - maybe with two people asking him to back it up he won't be able to dodge the question.

...
....

Good grief, HTS is a fundy - going out on a limb but bet he is going to dodge it.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117664 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Rusty got one right. There are no creatard articles about how the DESIGN of ATp-ase occurred
There are quite a few articles on the evolution of ATP-ase:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
Perhaps if he did not frame his questions idiotically he would get answers.
The abstract of the very first article in your link:

And here is the link....to make your life a little easier...

Otherwise...howl ...whinge....whine...I can't find it...screech...

" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FPL... ;

" P-type ATPases make up a large superfamily of ATP-driven pumps involved in the transmembrane transport of charged substrates. We have performed an analysis of conserved core sequences in 159 P-type ATPases. The various ATPases group together in five major branches according to substrate specificity,

....AND NOT ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS....

and not according to the evolutionary relationship of the parental species, indicating that invention of new substrate specificities is accompanied by abrupt changes in the rate of sequence evolution. A hitherto-unrecognized family of P-type ATPases has been identified that is expected to be represented in all the major phyla of eukarya."

At least CHECK what you hurriedly provide as scathing irrefutable evidence for animalutionism
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117665 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's early days? In other words you like quoting from techy-sounding science journals and pretending they support invisible Jewmagic.
It's been "early days" for 150 years.
Sour grapes....

Don't worry Bud

There's lots of 'science' that creationists also struggle to understand

Like the alleged 'science' supporting/proving animalutionism
HTS

Williston, ND

#117666 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep making this bogus claim?
I would like to see an article from a reliable source that says this.
You don't link such an article because you can't.
Another fail for HTS.
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.

In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,

"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30

I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117667 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bub, even Jimbo is questioning your sanity.
Since his sanity is highly questionable, this is not a good sign.
Hey, I not the one praying to a Bible character. And, thinking that humans are related to the apes. In, 1908 a meteroite exploded over Russia(look it up). Most humans took it as a fire God or something mythical....kind of like the Bible. And, we know the truth. Just like in the future the truth about human existence will be realized, not believed, but realized. Dude, its funny how Godbots question others sanity..........its shoulh be the other way around, for sure. So, go pray, then go to the zoo and watch your relitives swing on the bars. We will be exploring deep space proving the truth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117668 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.
Actually we can't tell if they're false or not, because you're not capable of even demonstrating it exists. So you're right, it's not a scientific argument. Because there's no such thing as scientific arguments against non-falsifiable concepts.

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117669 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that you had to bring up religion in your argument.
It WAS being discussed by you at the time. However if you notice in my actual arguments FOR evolution no reference to theological concepts are necessary.

I've even gone to great lengths to subsequently point that out to you yet anything you don't like, whether it mentions theism or not, you brand "atheism".
HTS wrote:
And for th last time, I never said that ID is a scientific theory.
Then why keep bringing up the concept?

I told you off the other day for doing that even though we both agreed that IDC was to be thrown out and not even mentioned anymore for being non-scientific.

Then someone mentioned evolution and you HAD to call it "atheism".
HTS wrote:
If your claim NDT to be scientific, why do you always have to bring up religion in your arguments. First you say that you never bring up religion,... Then in the same breath talk about "bad design"
Because YOU are talking about design. Evolution on its own doesn't even have to mention it. That is until the fundies come along and bang on about it all the time.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#117670 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.
Don't be dumb.

A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117671 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of how fashionable it might be to compare NDT to gravity, the comparison is stupid.
Actually it's not stupid. Your criticism of evolution is that evolution fails if it does not explain its respective origins. Therefore gravity fails if it does not explain the origin of mass. And the germ theory of disease fails if it does not explain abiogenesis.

That might be a surprise to the physics and medical communities respectively, though.
HTS wrote:
Making idiotic comparisons is not science. Show me the math as to how an ape could evolve into a man.
Why are you asking for math instead of biology?

Either way I've given you both.

Numerous times.

For months.

You've never bothered to address it.

All you say is "NO NO NO NO STUPID ATHEISM MEANIES!!!"

Yawn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117672 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have the gall to demand mechanisms? Tell me the "mechanisms" of the evolution of migratory instincts in whales... All you can say is "mutations + natural selection + millions of years = migratory instincts. Do you even know how whales migrate? Do you know what genes code for those instincts? Do you know the mechanisms of celestial navigation?
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?

While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.

Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#117673 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And so?????
Corruption after the Fall is expected and perfectly well represented in Nature
Just as the Bible says
Also see this
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_...
Except that vitamin C is still vital for life.
So if we needed it before the fall then why don't we need it now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117674 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
Hand waving
Blithe
Smug
Hand waving
You can't help it.(shrug)
Russell wrote:
There is NO evolutionary proposal for the mechanism of the DESIGN of the ATP-ase
Bingo. Because design is your baseless claim.
Russell wrote:
Evo-tards ....like you...will retort.... as you have a multitude of time before
*....small screeching falsetto...*
"That proves nothing..
That just means that God diddit with Jewish magic...
Whinge.....whine....howl"
Give it up, the Dude
Don't need to. Since your position IS Goddidit with magic we already told you that you can't win. A stalemate would be the best you could hope for. Well, if it weren't for the fact you never address the evidence for evolution in the meantime that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117675 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.
Since we've addressed your lies so many times over now while you in turn fail to deal with rebuttals, the only rational conclusion is that you're just another typical dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117676 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
At least CHECK what you hurriedly provide as scathing irrefutable evidence for animalutionism
At least check they were saying what you pretend they were saying. Because it turns out they still think evolution was responsible while you apparently know more than them, even though they were using evolutionary science you reject and evidence is irrelevant to anyone who believes Goddidit with magic anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117677 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?

Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.

And you did this 6 months ago.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117678 Feb 17, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be dumb.
A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
Only if it was a smart designer. It does not falsify the possibility of a dumb designer.

HTS just can't make up his mind whether the designer was smart or dumb.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min reporterreport 127,509
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 min KAB 139,354
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 33 min Kong_ 56
More Theories to Disprove Creation 2 hr The Dude 56
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 14 hr The Dude 996
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Mon tbrim21 13,575
Darwin on the rocks Sun TurkanaBoy 817

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE