Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
114,581 - 114,600 of 172,524 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
HTS

Williston, ND

#117651 Feb 17, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Vitamin C anyone?
"Human cells cannot perform the crucial last step of vitamin C biosynthesis, the conversion of l-gulono-g-lactone into ascorbic acid, which is catalysed by the enzyme gulonolactone oxidase. As a follow-up to Lehninger's work several years later, Nishikimi and co-workers observed that the gene that codes for gulonolactone oxidase is actually present in humans, but is not active due to the accumulation of several mutations that turned it into a non-functional pseudogene (Nishikimi & Yagi 1991)."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-...
The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117652 Feb 17, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Vitamin C anyone?
"Human cells cannot perform the crucial last step of vitamin C biosynthesis, the conversion of l-gulono-g-lactone into ascorbic acid, which is catalysed by the enzyme gulonolactone oxidase. As a follow-up to Lehninger's work several years later, Nishikimi and co-workers observed that the gene that codes for gulonolactone oxidase is actually present in humans, but is not active due to the accumulation of several mutations that turned it into a non-functional pseudogene (Nishikimi & Yagi 1991)."
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-...
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_...
HTS

Williston, ND

#117653 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I've never needed to bring up religion to demonstrate evolution. I can do that without a single reference to theism, then you only respond by whining about atheists.
The fact of the matter is that you're attempting to argue against evolution with a philosophical/theological argument for IDC. Those arguments fail scientifically, for instance total genome function being compatible with "TEH FALL".
Of course dumb design does not necessarily rule out a designer, it just rules out the claim that it was intelligent. Good design? God made it that way. Bad design? God made it that way. Or it was all that talking lizard's fault! The problem being that IDC doesn't make any scientific predictions of its own, but rather depends solely on anti-evolution arguments which all have their roots in creationism.
Don't blame us if ALL you have to argue against science with is theology.
We do not care.
Interesting that you had to bring up religion in your argument. And for th last time, I never said that ID is a scientific theory. 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"
HTS

Williston, ND

#117654 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundies don't do subtlety...
Regardless of how fashionable it might be to compare NDT to gravity, the comparison is stupid. Making idiotic comparisons is not science. Show me the math as to how an ape could evolve into a man.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117657 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there was little more there than the usual "it's all to complicated!" anti-evolution BS. No actual talk of the actual mechanisms responsible or evidence for them. Oh, then there's that bit on their own websites where they openly admit (in one of those very rare moments of honesty) that the Bible comes first before science. Behe already tried this BS and that ended up being an epic fail.
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?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117658 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there was little more there than the usual "it's all to complicated!" anti-evolution BS. No actual talk of the actual mechanisms responsible or evidence for them. Oh, then there's that bit on their own websites where they openly admit (in one of those very rare moments of honesty) that the Bible comes first before science. Behe already tried this BS and that ended up being an epic fail.
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
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 12 min Kong_ 115,249
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min KAB 136,272
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 2 hr TedHOhio 209
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 2 hr TurkanaBoy 320
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••