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 5,800)

Showing posts 115,981 - 116,000 of171,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119073
Feb 22, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How does the body "find a way" to use an ERV? An organism is determined by his pre-existing genetic code. You haven't provided the slightest logical justification for the contention that useless information inserted into a host's DNA will eventually start having a function, sometimes vital to the host's reproduction. Just-so stories are transparent.
An ERV is not "useless information". That fallacy is easy to prove. An ERV occurs when a virus attaches itself to the genome in a reproductive cell. Since that virus depended upon that DNA for its life then by definition it is not useless.
If you contend that there are millions of transitional fossils, I'm sure you would be happy to provide me with a reference. No real evolutionary biologists thinks that. Why did Gould and Eldridge frequently comment on the rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record? I think you need to start by defining "transitional" and how you can prove that any species is transitional to another based on fragmented skeletal remains.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil since all life is always evolving. Perhaps you should be more accurate in your requests. And of course I will deny that request right now since you will not do the least little bit of work so that you might appreciate how the fossils that I link for you are transitional.

So, until you do some actual work I will merely enjoy myself by pointing out your countless errors.

Don't you get tired of looking like a fool by making such easily debunkable claims?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119074
Feb 22, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume that DNA was created because of scientific logic. Every other complexity that I observe requires intelligent design. A computer code cannot come into existence without a programmer.
You say DNA is LIKE a code in some ways but not in others. You state this only because of your predetermined commitment to materialism. A seed is planted. A complex plant results. What scientific evidence do you have that DNA is not a bona fide code? What logical basis do you have for such a claim? Do you have an explanation as to how complexity can arise from raw materials without being directed by a code? Do you think chemistry itself has the power to create life?
Really? Is a intelligent force behind the formation of each and every snowflake? They are all complex, yet I don't think god bothers personally with each one. There are many complex things that form on their own. You have a prejudice that does not allow you to see that life may have formed on its own too.

You are not working from "science", you are basing your ideas on your own personal prejudices. And personal prejudices can be very hard to overcome. Scientists have the same problem themselves which is why they very often take a very close look at what was assumed in any scientific work. If you make false assumptions at the start your whole idea can be ruined.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119075
Feb 22, 2013
 
From 2 computer scientists I have know:

#1
Compare a computer code with the genetic code. Computer codes are not redundant: genetic codes are massively so. Slight changes in computer codes are almost always harmful, those in genetic codes are usually neutral. Selection does not determine which computer codes get propagated, it does for genetic codes. Any changes in a computer code require intelligent intervention, not so for genetic codes.

#2
If God created us in his image, just the way he wanted us, why did he not design effective error checking into the genetic code? Oh sure, there are mechanisms in the cell to prevent and correct most of the random radiation damage and catch some kinds of replication errors, but lots and lots get through. Why so sloppy? I can easily create a digital record with as much redundancy as i need, and I don't need a tree of forbidden fruit and a satan snake to keep you from poking around my code--I can encrypt it.

Now, if DNA used public key cryptography based on some base 4 number system with a little computer in the cell to read it, error check it, and flawlessly implement it, that would be evidence for a designer. But that's not what we see AT ALL.

DNA is just a set of sloppy protein recipes. It if full not just of mutations, but of duplication errors of all types, some of which lead to new functions, some of which cause failure, and most of which can corroded into nothingness, but remain forever in our genes (A designer would occasionally refactor the code--removing the trash and normalizing things--but we don't see this either. We see most codes for common proteins and enzymes being modified over time, even when the new forms are functionally identical to the old. This is not something a designer would waste energy on, but it is what you expect of a mindless system that works by amplifying helpful traits, pruning harmful ones, AND IGNORING THE REST.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119076
Feb 22, 2013
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.h...

Christian Claim CF003:

How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?

Response:

1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.
Links:

Musgrave, Ian et al., 2003. Information theory and creationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/i...
Further Reading:

Musgrave, Ian, 1998. Re: Abiogenesis (Post of the Month: April 1998) http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119077
Feb 22, 2013
 
I have to run now, but HTS, if you seriously want me to provide you with evidence then you need to learn what evidence actually it. Otherwise I will post something that is undeniably evidence, and there is a definition of "evidence" so that both sides of an argument can agree on whether something is evidence or not.

I don't want to waste my time posting something that is obviously evidence only to have you to incorrectly deny it.
SA Kiteman

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119078
Feb 22, 2013
 
Shout E be taught in HS?

No, it should be taught in ES.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119079
Feb 22, 2013
 
SA Kiteman wrote:
Shout E be taught in HS?
No, it should be taught in ES.
I agree
Teach E
Absolutely
Warts and all

Let sensible kids know the truth about the fallacious NON-science of make believe wishful thinking

Full of 'just-so' yarns

But do not deprive our children of knowing the truth

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119080
Feb 22, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are profoundly dishonest. You have categorically excluded all quotes I presesnt by accusing me of "quote mining". Likewise, all scientific references I post are not considered because you believe I got them off of creationist websites. You constantly introduce irrelevant distractions such as Collins being a Christian. It is obvious that you have no regard for scientific principles whatsoever, but try to justify your worldview by what you naively consider "science" which in reality is hand selected propaganda.
Well, maybe if you stopped using claims and arguments that tend to only appear on creationist websites, we'd stop saying that you do that. I don't suppose you think it's OUR fault that you've been doing that, do you?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119081
Feb 22, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
If you get a virus in one of your cells, it copies its DNA into your DNA in order to make more copies of itself.
If that happens in a blood cell, then that one cell has the DNA insert.
..........
That ONLY happens when a virus gets into a sperm or egg which goes on to produce a living being.
From then on, anyone born to that lineage will also have the same retroviral insert in their DNA.
So, the fact that ALL humans have the same retroviral DNA inserts means that ALL humans share a common ancestor who had those same inserts.
**Truncated for space**

Viral infected cells are destroyed by T-cells
Or there is apoptosis

A viral infected embryo will not undergo embryogenesis

Besides lysogenic to lytic is an easy conversion for viruses and an embryo would be an easy kill

Besides, about 85-90% of these ERV's, HERVS, or whatever you wish to call 'em, have been shown by VALID science to be about 85-90% promoter and enhancer elements

Similarly, in relation to pseudogenes, I quote from GENCODE

"Analysis of transcriptomic and proteomic data is also revealing pseudogenes that are potentially expressed. The GENCODE reference set aids such analysis since it is the only gene set to contain comprehensively manually annotated pseudogenes to the same level as protein and noncoding genes. We currently predict a total of around 10,000 pseudogenes within the human genome. Recent publications highlight the implications of pseudogenes as regulators of gene expression (Han et al. 2011) and specifically a role in tumor biology (Poliseno et al. 2010), and thus we will have to rethink the classification of pseudogenes as nonfunctional entities on the genome."

__________
Harrow J, et al GENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project.
Genome Res. 2012 Sep;22(9):1760-74. doi: 10.1101/gr.135350.111. PubMed PMID: 22955987; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3431492.

__________

There is no explanation for how unrelated ERV’s in unrelated species have ‘created’ the same gene--> convergent evolution

“ERVWE1/Synctin-1 and ERVFRDE1/Syncytin-2 are specific to primates and thus do not exist in other placentae. However, this apparent endogenous retrovirus hihacking for placentation use is not restricted tot he primates. Indeed two unique endogenous envelope genes of retroviral origin have been found in the mouse, i.e. Syncytin-A and –B … Altogether the date strongly argue for convergent evolution of endogenous retroviral envelopes to serve for placentation in mammals.”
http://atlasgeneticsoncology.org/Genes/ERVWE1...

And here:

“We demonstrate that both the human and rodent neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) genes, involved in preventing cell death, use different ERV sequences to drive gene expression. Moreover, in each of the primate and rodent lineages, two separate ERVs contribute to NAIP gene expression. This repeated ERV recruitment by NAIP genes throughout evolution is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. We offer a number of potential explanations, including the intriguing possibility that it may be advantageous for anti-cell death genes like NAIP to use ERVs to control their expression. These results support the view that not all retroviral remnants in our genome are simply junk DNA.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerende...

Essential gene regulators:

“We also present evidence that the functional TF binding sites of the human b3GAL-T5 LTR promoter were present in the original consensus sequence for this class of LTRs. Upon similar analysis of other ERV sequences, we have concluded that this evolutionary history is shared by certain other LTR gene promoters, and may be a general phenomenon.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
c&_acct=C000050221&_ve rsion=1&_urlVersion=0& _userid=10&md5=19c2ea074be c5e7313b36ce1630e38a8

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119082
Feb 22, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> No, my logical scientific deduction leads me to that belief. What observational science can you point to to suggest that DNA can form without intelligence?
Define "logical." If "fingers in ears and yelling LALALALALALA" is what you think "logical" is (which, based on your posts, isn't terribly inaccurate), you don't know what logical means. That, and about a couple dozen other terms.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119083
Feb 22, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Define "logical." If "fingers in ears and yelling LALALALALALA" is what you think "logical" is (which, based on your posts, isn't terribly inaccurate), you don't know what logical means. That, and about a couple dozen other terms.
How are you going with your study of the recurrent laryngeal nerve?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119084
Feb 22, 2013
 
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry. You have me confused with someone else. I have no interest in your god or any other of the thousands of gods you and your ilk have created or the last several millennia.
Why call yourself "The Gods" then?
You clearly have a passing interest in God to have selected that moniker

...And a Hebrew word, no less

Hilarious!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119085
Feb 22, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You need to seriously think about what you are saying. Jesus was the greatest human being who ever lived, and His life and teachings have formed the foundation of morality of every civilized nation for centuries. For you to sit there and arrogantly hurl blasphemous insults only reveals your shallowness.
Can you show some evidence that the Jesus character of christianity is not just a rehash of the previous Roman god, Mithra? If you say that Mithra was just a figment of people's imagination, would you be hurling a blasphemous insult?

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119086
Feb 22, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Harsh but true, no sweetener for you.
Gosh, now I'm a poet.
Ach du liebe ....meine Güte!

The harshness!

These evolutionists!

No mercy

Just ignorance and empty promises

When will it end....when??
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119087
Feb 22, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then this does not support your claims that evolution is false and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Of course you are unable to reference him anyway since you don't even believe in the scientific method he uses in the first place. Thanks again for another find demonstration of your hypocrisy.
No, Don, no more dishonest than my quoting you saying life begets life and that God diddit with with Jewish magic....

You jest...I know...but the truth of your statements is not invalidated by your utter confusion about whether God exists

Secondly, there is no point providing SubDud with any references

He only reads Stuttering Pigeons, with the occasional foray into Panda's bum

But for you, a zany evolutionary geneticist with out there ideas:

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.A...

A pdf, no less


----------
"One criterion propounded to distinguish informational DNA is whether it is transcribed into RNA. Employing this criterion, the evidence for functionality ----OF ALL---of all regions of the genome has recently been extended by a detailed investigation of 1% of the human genome.

22
This Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences study has indicated that---VIRTUALLY ALL---- virtually all DNA in the genome, most of which does not encode protein, is transcribed from one or both strands.

So the central dogma-based notion that the genome can be functionally discriminated into transcribed (informational, coding) and nontranscribed (junk) regions appears to be invalid. There are other reasons for discounting the notion that only protein-coding DNA contains biologically meaningful information."

----------
ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identi&#64257;cation and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447: 799–816.

And see

Harrow J, et al
GENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project. Genome Res. 2012 Sep;22(9):1760-74. doi: 10.1101/gr.135350.111. PubMed PMID: 22955987; PubMed
Central PMCID: PMC3431492.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119088
Feb 22, 2013
 
The word natural, means, naturally occurring, like sun shine, rain, snow, heat from the sun, light from the sun and such.

Selection, means to choose, which is at odds with natural. Science has twisted the words and their meanings, but hey, that's just the normal deceit in evolution.
Mugwump

Workington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119089
Feb 22, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The word natural, means, naturally occurring, like sun shine, rain, snow, heat from the sun, light from the sun and such.
Selection, means to choose, which is at odds with natural. Science has twisted the words and their meanings, but hey, that's just the normal deceit in evolution.
Edgar
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119090
Feb 22, 2013
 
The gov propaganda machine is moving full force on PBS and NPR. It won't matter for long, because the gov has created the demise of this gov or the fall of this nation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119091
Feb 22, 2013
 
Poor Rusty, he has delusions of adequacy again. It seems he likes to pull a Maz now and then too. Like Maz he will find an article with keywords that are hopeful to him and then he posts it as if he has accomplished something.

Rusty, you have shown time after time that you don't understand the few noncreatard articles that you link.

Worse yet you have admitted to denying almost all science. Even science as recent as Newton's mechanics go against your idiotic creatard beliefs.

All you have been able to do is to try to insult people by copying what is said about you. Unfortunately since others do not make the same grade school mistakes that you do those insults do not apply.

ignorance is a mighty fortress for Rusty.
Mugwump

Workington, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119092
Feb 22, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The gov propaganda machine is moving full force on PBS and NPR. It won't matter for long, because the gov has created the demise of this gov or the fall of this nation.
Allan

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 115,981 - 116,000 of171,372
|
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.

•••
•••