Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

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."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#121358 Mar 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
2. There is no good reason for an intelligent designer to use vastly different length genomes for creatures of similar complexity and certainly no reason for some salamanders to have genomes 40 times the length of ours.
Playing God is not science. In the first place, you cannot propose what intelligently designed DNA for a salamander should look like. Secondly, you cannot assume anything about how creative design would have been accomplished.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121359 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That having been acknowledged, there is no observed genetic mechanism for the creation of complexity through mutations and natural selection. Your entire paradigm is based on dogma, not science.
Of course there is, and plenty of evidence has been provided and never been addressed. And the icing on the cake is that you can't even tell us how "complexity" is measured in the first place, which in your case is the foundation of your argument. Oh well.
HTS wrote:
Judging whether or not "design" is intelligent is religion, not science.
Oh, I agree IDC is religion and not science. Again, not our problem.

You'll still bring it up again later on though.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121360 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Playing God is not science. In the first place, you cannot propose what intelligently designed DNA for a salamander should look like. Secondly, you cannot assume anything about how creative design would have been accomplished.
You're right we can't. Neither can you. IDC is hence moot to science period.

You can uh, shut up about it now.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121361 Mar 4, 2013
Dunno who's judging HTS's posts so fast, but isn't it kinda superfluous?

:-/

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121362 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know.
But if we were to plot on a chart the genome size as a function of universal common descent evolution, this would contradict the theory.
You're presuming evolution is neat and tidy which it isn't.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121363 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That having been acknowledged, there is no observed genetic mechanism for the creation of complexity through mutations and natural selection. Your entire paradigm is based on dogma, not science.
The mechanisms trial and error.

Random mutations occur.
Life (Natural selection) weeds out the least able to survive.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121364 Mar 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You're presuming evolution is neat and tidy which it isn't.
But this is way beyond neat and tidy. This is more common sense. A very very primitive organism has more DNA than the most complex evolved creature known? Come on...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121365 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Playing God is not science. In the first place, you cannot propose what intelligently designed DNA for a salamander should look like. Secondly, you cannot assume anything about how creative design would have been accomplished.
Salamanders genome varies incredibly depending on species.

Smallest salamander genome size: 10.12pg, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Spring salamander
Largest salamander genome size: 120.60pg, Necturus lewisi, Gulf coast waterdog
Mean for salamanders: 35.90pg ± 1.05

pg = picogram = 978 million base pairs.
http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php...

Do you have any explanation for that (apart from junk dna)?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121366 Mar 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
The mechanisms trial and error.
Random mutations occur.
Life (Natural selection) weeds out the least able to survive.
Trial and error is a theoretical mechanism that has never been demonstrated to occur. The evolution of complexity is merely imagined.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121367 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But this is way beyond neat and tidy. This is more common sense. A very very primitive organism has more DNA than the most complex evolved creature known? Come on...
Sounds more like a creo quandary to me. I've pointed out to you guys all year that it's the pattern of inheritance that's relevant to evolution, not how much of each genome is functional or not. But instead of dealing with that all we get is "Junk DNA BUSTED LOLOLOLOL!!!!!" (yawn)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121368 Mar 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Salamanders genome varies incredibly depending on species.
Smallest salamander genome size: 10.12pg, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Spring salamander
Largest salamander genome size: 120.60pg, Necturus lewisi, Gulf coast waterdog
Mean for salamanders: 35.90pg ± 1.05
pg = picogram = 978 million base pairs.
http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php...
Do you have any explanation for that (apart from junk dna)?
I don't presume to judge what looks like intelligently designed DNA and what isn't, because I don't know the language of the genetic code... and neither does anyone of earth. Even if there is "junk", its existence doesn't offer any evidence for evolution or that it wasn't intelligently designed.
What you have is philosophical evidence for evolution, not scientific evidence.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#121369 Mar 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Salamanders genome varies incredibly depending on species.
Smallest salamander genome size: 10.12pg, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus, Spring salamander
Largest salamander genome size: 120.60pg, Necturus lewisi, Gulf coast waterdog
Mean for salamanders: 35.90pg ± 1.05
pg = picogram = 978 million base pairs.
http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php...
Do you have any explanation for that (apart from junk dna)?
Enough. Cut to the chase. Show a orgmaism on the Tree of Life that has less than a predecessor.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121370 Mar 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is, and plenty of evidence has been provided and never been addressed. And the icing on the cake is that you can't even tell us how "complexity" is measured in the first place,...(shrug)
Listen, Dude...
Igor, one of your own, already acknowledged that complexity exists (something that to this point you have refused to do). He said that a snake is more complex than a worm. So your chirping in is at best a distraction.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121371 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But this is way beyond neat and tidy. This is more common sense. A very very primitive organism has more DNA than the most complex evolved creature known? Come on...
List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes

Plasmodium falciparum Human pathogen (malaria) 22.9 Mb
Plasmodium yoelii yoelii Rodent pathogen (malaria) 23.1 Mb
Cryptosporidium hominis Human pathogen 10.4 Mb
Cryptosporidium parvum Human pathogen 16.5 Mb
Thalassiosira pseudonana Model organism 34.5 Mb

Homo sapiens Human 3.2 Gb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequence...

So those simple eukaryotes have way smaller genomes than we do.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121372 Mar 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
All sensible evolutionists/atheists dump evo-god and become creationists.....and Christian.......when you study the FACTS...you have no choice
When you study only facts, you cannot be religious in any way.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121373 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I don't presume to judge what looks like intelligently designed DNA and what isn't, because I don't know the language of the genetic code... and neither does anyone of earth. Even if there is "junk", its existence doesn't offer any evidence for evolution or that it wasn't intelligently designed.
What you have is philosophical evidence for evolution, not scientific evidence.
The incredible variation in genome sizes among even closely related species is very good evidence against an intelligent designer creating everything just 6,000 years ago.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121374 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, Dude...
Igor, one of your own, already acknowledged that complexity exists (something that to this point you have refused to do). He said that a snake is more complex than a worm. So your chirping in is at best a distraction.
You are defining complexity as an absolute though, and there is no absolute for complexity, it's a relative description and nothing more. Is a desktop computer more complex than a phone?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121375 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Trial and error is a theoretical mechanism that has never been demonstrated to occur. The evolution of complexity is merely imagined.
It's been done in the lab.

"In this study, an RNA enzyme was placed in a situation where it was imperfectly copied. By reducing the amount of substrate available to the enzyme in each iteration of the experiment, the researchers could select for improved function in the enzyme.

The final enzyme was genetically analyzed and found to have 11 mutations. The final enzyme had a 90-fold improvement in enzyme activity. This improvement occurred in 70 hours."
http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/20...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121376 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know. But if we were to plot on a chart the genome size as a function of universal common descent evolution, this would contradict the theory.

In what way?

It seems to confirm evolution and contradict creationism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121377 Mar 4, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That having been acknowledged, there is no observed genetic mechanism for the creation of complexity through mutations and natural selection. Your entire paradigm is based on dogma, not science.

The entire universe is made up of invisible purple ping-pong balls.

No such thing as "complexity".

The mechanisms of evolution are well known and I have listed them many times in this forum.

Sorry, you will lose every time till you learn how to learn.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min Eagle 12 18,524
Questions about first life 16 min FallenGeologist 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min IB DaMann 43,196
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr It aint necessari... 914
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Blitzking 204,864
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr Chimney1 151,481
Sun could not have formed as thought 19 hr U think Im wrong 19
More from around the web