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 (Page 5,772)

Showing posts 115,421 - 115,440 of168,600
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118495
Feb 20, 2013
 
Good night Russell.

Thanks for letting me go to bed with a smile on my face.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118497
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never said that science can prove a personal God. Einstein believed in intelligent design. And by the way, Newton wasn't a "wacko"... he was one of the most brilliant scientists in history. He just wasn't an atheist hack like so many modern physicists.
No, Einstein was a deist, they don't follow the nonsense you creationists do.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118498
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your level of sophistication is "nothing plus no intelligence plus billions of years equals everything".
Which makes a lot more sense than your I Dream of Genie fantasy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118499
Feb 21, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did two of the lines die out?
It does not matter.

Evolution does not say recovery is inevitable, it say recovery is possible. Sanford on the other hand rules out any possibility of recovery.

Therefore empirically established recovery falsifies Sanford.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118500
Feb 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your explanation is founded on raw speculation. You imagine that "neutral" mutations will often benefit the species. You are abandoning common sense. How can coded information with language type functionality possibly improve by random mistakes in replication. A monkey can never type a Shakespearean play.
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).

But we should for now focus on something else. Its a protein, meaning coded by one of those rare HIGH SPECIFICITY parts of the genome, the 1.5% actively coding proteins. You would presume, on your assumptions, that at the very least protein specificity must be very, very high, out of all DNA functions. A base out of place and BAM!...dead or sick organism.

Sometimes that is true. But far more often, changes to the underlying base sequence make no difference, even in this undoubtedly extra-high specificity part of the genome. How do we know?

Well, in cyt-c, about 70 of the 100 or so bases are effectively non-functional. They can freely alter to be just about anything. If this is generally true, then from our 1.5% protein coding portion of DNA, no more than 0.5% of the genome is coding in highly specified ways.

And even within the 30% functional portion, which we call highly conserved i.e. variations are likely to be deleterious, there is still huge variation across the living kingdoms.

You can transplant human cyt-c into a yeast and it works just fine, because the underlying function is part of the metabolic cycle which is hardly any different from yeast to human. There are an estimated 10^93 different viable formulas for cytochrome-c !!! And that does not even count the fact that an unknown number of completely different proteins might have done the job of cyt-c if they and not it had evolved in the first place.

You should be able to see by now that any comparison with language is hopelessly flawed. Proteins do a "good enough" job in every case, and its quite possible they could be "better" too. In fact its overwhelmingly likely to be the case, as there are more possible combinations than even evolution running 3 billion years has the time to test.

So it was not a case of degradation from perfection. It was a case of a protein sequence showing just enough catalytic or structural effect to be selectable (and tests show that as many as 10% of RANDOM polypeptide sequences show some form of catalytic activity), and this line being selected and improved through random change, until an equilibrium is reached in every case where:

beneficial change + selection EQUALS the rate of deleterious change.

Its a stable equilibrium, but not a static one. Over time, these proteins DO change (enabling testing of the nested hierarchy too!). They were never perfect, and are never likely to be. But they work, and they are resilient, and adaptable, and flexible.

Iambic Pentameter this ain't. A hodgepodge from a badly written recipe book is a better analogy than Shakespeare, if you must use one.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118501
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter.
Evolution does not say recovery is inevitable, it say recovery is possible. Sanford on the other hand rules out any possibility of recovery.
Therefore empirically established recovery falsifies Sanford.
Heterogeneity is established by the finding that only two lines died

There was a variable response to invariable stress

This establishes the existence of variability in the test population

Some died

Most did not

Some were more susceptible than others

It quite clear

This was a heterogeneous population

Therefore the less affected and unaffected expressed ancestral fitness when the environment permitted

They were able to do so since they NEVER lost ancestral fitness

In organisms that DID all lose ancestral fitness, as in 2011

Recovery of fitness does NOT occur

Sanford stands

Kondrashov and others support the concept of entropy, contentious as it may be

See for example:

Bridgham JT, Ortlund EA, Thornton JW. An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution. Nature. 2009 Sep
24;461(7263):515-9. doi: 10.1038/nature08249. PubMed PMID: 19779450.

"Reversing the restrictive substitutions first, however, does nothing to enhance the ancestral function. Our findings indicate that even if selection for the ancestral function were imposed, direct reversal would be extremely unlikely, suggesting an important role for historical contingency in protein evolution."

__________

By the way...

I nearly got hit by a truck in an intersection in a few-kilometer long tunnel in Norway

Fortunately I had stopped at a traffic light...just in time...

Lived to be here today to tell you

"You're wrong"

The fjords were stunning!

But you are probably already quite blase about that type of pristine beauty coming from NZ?

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118503
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118509
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118510
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118511
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118514
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118515
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118516
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118517
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 115,421 - 115,440 of168,600
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••