Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,064

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." Read more
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118503 Feb 21, 2013
Just as another example--->

Controversial?

Yes

Soylemez O, Kondrashov FA. Estimating the rate of irreversibility in protein evolution. Genome Biol Evol. 2012 Jan;4(12):1213-22. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evs096.
PubMed PMID: 23132897; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3542581.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118504 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
Just as another example
Sorry Russ, but all your objections were rendered moot when you admitted you were only interested in religious apologetics instead of science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118505 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, in your arrogant mind, Newton was a moron... and you imagine that scientists today, who are much brighter than Newton, are not subject to such deceptions.
Well done for inventing another straw-man and avoiding the content of my post.

As usual.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118506 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never restricted my arguments to a personal God. ToE, however, denies the necessity of any intelligent force in the creation of species.
No it doesn't. You've been asked to present scientific evidence, but since you have none it has nothing to deny. Evolution is no more "atheistic" than any other scientific theory.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118507 Feb 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. There is no evidence of beneficial mutations. I suppose if the evolutionist, due to his worldview - assumes that the whole genome is mutations, I can see how they would make this error. But we do not believe that. A mutation is an error made during replication. You have to show the nucleotide sequence change before and after and what function/control/protein it codes for and what specific trait has been changed.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Your assumption is based on the premise that there was an original "perfect" genome which you are unable to describe and have no evidence. Since the evidence for common ancestry contradicts your assertions, except for the bit where Jewmagic fixes any and all problems which has nothing to do with science anyway, your claims are dismissed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118508 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Indulge me
What does the enzyme stuff have to do with evolution?
Can't you read your own post?

1)“Creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water’, but was speeded up 10^18 times by an enzyme."

Do your own homework.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118509 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You (and Urban Cowboy, etc) keep starting with the unnecessary and speculative assumption that there was some "perfect genome" and any changes are going to be deleterious. Lets go back to good old cytochrome-c, a favourite of mine because the variation in the non-functional portion (about 70%) varies freely according to genetic drift and so provides an excellent test for the nested hierarchy showing common ancestry (which it does beautifully).
Truncated for space

You are overlooking a number of features of the cell, in terms of its robustness, via the numerous error correction capabilities, AND the sub- or supra-, depending on your taste for dogma or innovation, DNA proficiencies of the cell
Indeed, the chromatin rearrangements are said to affect chromosome regions bringing into sharp view the present fascination with the concepts of epigenetics
Firstly

The redundancy described by Orgel and Crick in 1980 is in itself a redundant concept

Orgel, L.E. & Crick, F.H. 1980. Sel&#64257;sh DNA: The
ultimate parasite. Nature 284: 604–607.
----------

So your saying that seventy of the hundred bases are redundant..is a redundant statement presently in Genetics

"Through its abundance and taxonomic specicity, it appears that “noncoding” DNA plays a key role in establishing the functional spatial architecture of the genome. The role of repetitive DNA in the organization of chromatin domains is becoming increasingly apparent."

--Slotkin, R.K. & R. Martienssen. 2007. Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8: 272–285.
----------
Additionally
It has been found that ALL of the human genome, most of which does not translate into proteins, is transcribed...from one or both strands

Gingeras, T.R. 2007. Origin of phenotypes: Genes and transcripts. Genome Res. 17: 682–690.

Including from recent results from ENCODE
__________

The traditional view of a hardwired...yuck...lock and key specificity has been replaced by postcentral dogma of the importance of multivalent and combinatorial determination of specicity

There is a more fuzzy logic rather than a deterministic specificity

EVERY element of the genome has multiple components and interacts
either directly or indirectly with many other genomic elements as it function in coding, expression, replication, and inheritance. The importance of chromatin configuration, RNA processing, and protein modification are clear examples of how separate genomic elements influence expression of any individual coding sequence.

Shapiro, a hostile witness to the creationist cause, has stated that the genome has a 'read-write' memory system in various domains involving adjustments to DNA binding proteins complexes in the cell cycle, and chromatin reformatting over several cell cycles, and by natural genetic engineering

He talks about the stability of the genome and resistance to random mutation

--Shapiro, J.A. & R. von Sternberg. 2005. Why repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Biol. Rev.(Camb.) 80: 227–250.

Also,

--Shapiro, J.A. 2006. Genome informatics: The role of DNA in cellular computations. Biol. Theory 1: 288–301.

And this too:

--Shapiro, J.A. 2005. A 21st century view of evolution: Genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering. Gene 345: 91–100.

Motors in nature, such as the ATP-synthase are ubiquitous

Highly conserved...

Porcine insulin works in humans...

----------
There is no reason to assume that a common designer has not displayed his handy work in His creation
--
Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118510 Feb 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you read your own post?
1)“Creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water’, but was speeded up 10^18 times by an enzyme."
Do your own homework.
What bearing has this on the Creation vs evolution debate?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118511 Feb 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Russ, but all your objections were rendered moot when you admitted you were only interested in religious apologetics instead of science.
Christianity and science go back a long way...

Evo-tardism has contributed NOTHING to the world

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118512 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What bearing has this on the Creation vs evolution debate?
Hey, you're the one who brought it up in the first place.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#118514 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You cannot talk about a slow march to meltdown when the 80 generation recovery was obviously a slow march back from meltdown, caused by the reintroduction of natural selection, and Sanford claimed this CANNOT HAPPEN.
Show me where he says this. Period. You can't because it is completely contrary to his thesis. Those deleterious mutations are still in there and still accumulating. If you shovel loads of worms out of each generation and make a huge pile of worms that are free to multiply unrestricted, OF COURSE THEIR FITNESS WILL RECOVER! But sooner or later, because the deleterious mutations continue to accumulate and the fact that the genome is finite in size and there is some future limit on growth due to limited resources and maximum carrying capacity, genetic meltdown is the inevitable conclusion; Sanford's claim.

An analogy would be if you fed an organism a very poor diet, that would weaken its health. Sanford doesn't say even if you return the organism to a good diet the poor health is irreversible and the organsim -even with a good diet - will never return to health. No, absolutely not. Of course we all would expect the organism to return to good health after returning to a good diet.

The other major problem with that article is their use of the term "beneficial mutation". This is not supported, there is no evidence, and this is pure speculation. It is basically irresponsible and wreckless to simply assume beneficial mutations are responsible for the return to fitness. Gross negligence really. There is description of the nucleotides, location on the genome, gene, protein, trait, not anything to corroborate it. It is pure speculation. They produced offspring and lived to maturity whereas before they didn't therefore it was due to beneficial mutations? Hogwash!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118515 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
For the monkeys the selection process is not natural selection. We are not evolving Shakespeare. We are using a related but very different form of selection, "Shakespeare selection".
The problem with the original infinite monkeys example is that it is a very poor analogy of evolution since there is no selection of any kind.
By using Shakespeare selection the random process turns up his works rather rapidly. Natural selection in the real world is somewhere in between artificial selection, like we have done with all sorts of domestic animals, and no selection at all. Which we never see anywhere.
You didn't adress the problem. Your revised infinite monkey theorum is equally impossible. Any selective process that could week out incorrect keystrokes would have to have knowledge of the English language and would have to have an end goal. In other words, the selection process would require intelligence.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118516 Feb 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of a full-blown theory (what does that word mean in science?) does not make it religion. There are hypotheses, and they are being investigated and tested. ID/creationism doesn't have any hypotheses, nor any means of falsification (as it is merely an argument from ignorance), and thus there is no research into the hypotheses that don't exist, which means there is no theory forthcoming. So, abiogenesis: science. ID/creationism: not science.
You have no hypothesis, other than matter plus time = life, shrouded in pseudoscientific garb.
I have a hypothesis that a 747 could self assemble by the proverbial junkyard tornado.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118517 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You (and Urban Cowboy, etc) keep starting with the unnecessary and speculative assumption that there was some "perfect genome" and any changes are going to be deleterious. Lets go back to good old cytochrome-c, a favourite of mine because the variation in the non-functional portion (about 70%) varies freely according to genetic drift and so provides an excellent test for the nested hierarchy showing common ancestry (which it does beautifully).
A hodgepodge from a badly written recipe book is a better analogy than Shakespeare, if you must use one.
Who said anything about beginning with a "perfect genome"? I'm merely stating scientific fact... the human genome is deteriorating over time. I won't extrapolate into the distant past because I have insufficient informtion.
The paradigm of nested hierarchies is a rationalization to accomodate Darwinism. Gradualism logically predicts indistinct divisions between basic kinds. The only reason ToE "predicts" nested hierarchies is because they exist.
If you claim that human DNA is a hodgepodge from a badly written recipe book, please inform us what intelligently designed DNA would look like. You can't look at nucleotide sequences and decide which are redundant and which are transmitting parallel information, because neither you nor anyone on this planet understands the language of the genetic code. If I were to show you a portion of the computer code for a space shuttle, it would look no more complex to you than a portion of code for a tic tac toe game app for an iphone.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#118518 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have no hypothesis, other than matter plus time = life, shrouded in pseudoscientific garb.
I have a hypothesis that a 747 could self assemble by the proverbial junkyard tornado.
747's are NOT alive, do NOT reproduce and are incapable of doing this:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/02/20/m...

"Hud's group knew that they were on to something when they added a small chemical tail to a proto-RNA base and saw it spontaneously form linear assemblies with another proto-RNA base. In some cases, the results produced 18,000 nicely ordered, stacked molecules in one long structure."

Just one more step in the process of demonstrating abiogenesis. BTW LOTS of the steps have already been duplicated in the lab and there are scientists who are quite confident that the entire process will be achieved in our lifetimes.

What will your argument be then?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118519 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Truncated for space
....------
So your saying that seventy of the hundred bases are redundant..is a redundant statement presently in Genetics
"Through its abundance and taxonomic specicity, it appears that “noncoding” DNA plays a key role in establishing the functional spatial architecture of the genome. The role of repetitive DNA in the organization of chromatin domains is becoming increasingly apparent."
--Slotkin, R.K. & R. Martienssen. 2007. Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8: 272–285.
etc etc__________
The traditional view of a hardwired...yuck...lock and key specificity has been replaced by postcentral dogma of the importance of multivalent and combinatorial determination of specicity

etc etc

There is a more fuzzy logic rather than a deterministic specificity
EVERY element of the genome has multiple components and interacts
either directly or indirectly with many other genomic elements as it function in coding, expression, replication, and inheritance. etc etc
That's an impressive amount of point missing there (also truncated)

I am talking about the amino acids of the cytochrome c protein itself. Its coded, and its 70% non-functional or at least non-specific. These 70 bases could be just about anything, and across life they vary hugely - in a nested hierarchy of variation reflecting common ancestry, of course.

Now, regardless of your long post, my POINT in this case is that a protein like cyt-c is not a perfect creation and there is no need to suppose it ever was. It has emerged to a point of efficiency and "perfection" whereby a long run equilibrium between deleterious mutations and beneficial mutations + drift are balanced. This can be quantified in a Markov chain...there is nothing strange or mysterious about it.

BTW this would be true whether the earlier state of efficiency was either higher or lower than today. Its a stable equilibrium state and departures either way will be corrected...unless of course you change the conditions for example by suspending natural selection.

The error in Sanford's catastrophic view starts with the unnecessary assumption of a "time of perfection" and then ignores the obvious fact...that the LESS perfect the current state of a gene (etc), the higher the probability that a random change will be beneficial. Thus a long run stable equilibrium lying between "perfection" and "meltdown".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118520 Feb 21, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
747's are NOT alive, do NOT reproduce and are incapable of doing this:
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2013/02/20/m...
"Hud's group knew that they were on to something when they added a small chemical tail to a proto-RNA base and saw it spontaneously form linear assemblies with another proto-RNA base. In some cases, the results produced 18,000 nicely ordered, stacked molecules in one long structure."
Just one more step in the process of demonstrating abiogenesis. BTW LOTS of the steps have already been duplicated in the lab and there are scientists who are quite confident that the entire process will be achieved in our lifetimes.
What will your argument be then?
Molecules are not alive and cannot be acted upon by natural selection.
The formation of ordered stacked molecules in one long structure under controlled laboratory conditions does not constitute a theory of abiogenesis. All you have is wishful thinking.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118521 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No just a nice person who refrains from toppling tiny tots off their little perches
So, you think you know more about geology than geologists despite not being a geologist yourself.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118522 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an impressive amount of point missing there (also truncated)
I am talking about the amino acids of the cytochrome c protein itself. Its coded, and its 70% non-functional or at least non-specific. These 70 bases could be just about anything, and across life they vary hugely - in a nested hierarchy of variation reflecting common ancestry, of course.
".
Please show everyone what an intelligently designed cytochrome C protein would look like on paper. It should be a simple task, since you are so familiar with what is functional and what isn't.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#118523 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said anything about beginning with a "perfect genome"? I'm merely stating scientific fact... the human genome is deteriorating over time.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist xristian cerationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

You "stating a scientific fact" is massively ironic.

Otzi the Iceman's genome was sequenced a number of years ago. If his genome was significantly different from ours it would have made headlines around the world. It didn't. As a matter of scientific fact, Otzi had Lyme's disease, lactose intolerance and a predispositon for cardiovascular disease. And given the scientific fact that at 5300 years old, he may actually have been one of your bronze age FAIRY TALES fictional characters Adam and Eve's children, his genome should be VASTLY superior to ours. It ain't. Imagine that.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Denisova 154,521
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr Chimney1 881
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Patrick n Angela 17,896
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 23 hr Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Wed MikeF 3,394
More from around the web