Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179341 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

#137572 Jun 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

And a lying idiot at that who cannot be trusted without a link. I gave only one of the many articles that will tell you how dogs evolved. They have new genes. A separated species cannot help but to develop new genes since we all undergo mutations like it or not.
We know what the mutation rate is for various species, it can be measured quite easily. We can even tell how long ago closely related species separated by how big the difference is between their genomes.
Now here is a question for you. How can we measure that difference and get a year without there being differences present?
I will grant that you are sane. Right now you are the most idiotic sane person we have here. I don't know how you would judge the intelligence of the insane, but Jimbo is still the clear cut winner of a combination of insanity and stupidity.
The dogma of mutations producing complex adaptations is a myth that has been propagated for decades to justify the tenets of Darwinism.
Mutations are beneficial in science fiction movies...not in the real world.
Teenage mutant Ninja turtles and their rat mentor emerge out of a sewer in fairytales.
In the real world, mutations result in a depressed immune system, non-viability, cancer, etc.
You cannot effectuate positive change by random rearrangements of genetic code. It is mathematically impossible, regardless of whatever power you ascribe to natural selection and genetic drift.
All you can do is hide behind the "millions of years can create anything" fantasy.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#137573 Jun 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry if I quote the facts. I know you hate those.
I was just demonstrated that you are no less busted on this issue today than you ever were.
keep it coming
makes me kind of angry
but don't stop now chum.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137574 Jun 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
molecular homology is part of evolutionary theory. You cannot carve out bits you like and claim them. That is just nonsense.
Next think you know you guys will be claiming that microevolution exists but not macro! And you will believe it when you say it too, which is the frightening part.
I've never suggested that microevolution exists.
You cling to the ridiculous extrapolation that micro- and macro- differ only in timescales.
That is a self-evident fallacy.
Lenski's experiment documenting citrate utilization in E.coli doesn't suggest that bacteria, given millions of years, can evolve into humans.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#137575 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology is a failed argument, AM.
Genetic homology is predicted by ID.
The repetitive regurgitation of debunked logic only weakens your position.
You're an idiot, it is common ancestry not "Genetic homology"
Anyway read what you wrote and you debunk yourself.
Turbotard!

"Genetic homology is a failed argument,
Genetic homology is predicted by ID."

You sound just like Nancy Pelosi, We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137576 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You just validated my point.
You ASSUME that molecular homologies resulted from random mutations as opposed to intelligent design.
If an intelligent computer programmer were to design two similar programs, it would not be surprising for him to program both in a similar way.
If geneticists were to take the DNA of a living species and manipulate it and create a new species through cloning, would you expect to find molecular homologies? Of course.
Molecular homologies does not prove common descent, because they would be EXPECTED in intelligently designed life.
Let's take, for example, human and chimp DNA...
What would you expect to find through molecular sequencing if humans and chimps were intelligently designed?
Why would I expect a nested hierarchy of variation in the pseudogene for vitamin C in primates? A nested hierarchy in a basically useless piece of code?

I wouldn't. I wouldn't even expect the pseudogene to be there, frankly, and if that gene or some tiny part of it is still doing something useful, then in a design scenario I would expect just that bit to be there. But for the useless sequence to be gradually changing as per the assumptions of genetic drift and showing exactly the same nested hierarchy that the fossil record shows, well, I guess to me TWO forms of independently converging evidence are slam dunk evidence. Tne add Cyt-C and we have three forms. And so on.

You never really looked at my xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx post and so still ignore the compelling evidence that these changes represent.

As to your last question, then of course I would expect great similarity anatomically. But I still would NOT expect the pattern of differences observed in ubiquitous proteins, pseudogenes, and ERVs (most of which are still useless in spite of your posts showing function for some).

The essential point is, regions of the genome with LOW specificity are what show up the evolutionary relationships.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137577 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The dogma of mutations producing complex adaptations is a myth that has been propagated for decades to justify the tenets of Darwinism.
Mutations are beneficial in science fiction movies...not in the real world.
Teenage mutant Ninja turtles and their rat mentor emerge out of a sewer in fairytales.
In the real world, mutations result in a depressed immune system, non-viability, cancer, etc.
You cannot effectuate positive change by random rearrangements of genetic code. It is mathematically impossible, regardless of whatever power you ascribe to natural selection and genetic drift.
All you can do is hide behind the "millions of years can create anything" fantasy.
Yes and it would appear that you too get your understanding of evolution from X-men movies and other cartoons. No wonder your criticisms are so off the mark. No, nobody waved a magic mutation wand and a feather appeared. That is not how evolution works, or was ever considered to work, by actual scientists.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#137578 Jun 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, falsifying ID does not falsify God. You are making a moron's assumption. ID is not falsifiable only because if you run into a difficulty the claim of IDiots is that god did it. No explanation is given besides that.
You still have not defined Intelligent Design. There are IDiots like Behe who would disagree with you. He believes in common descent. He believes in "worm to man" evolution. The difference is that he believes "God helped". There are also creatard IDiots. They believe in a literal creation. They also believe in an incompetent god.
Which version do you believe in?
WORM>>MAN>>WORM (evolution)

if the planet is in a global warming phase
regressive common ancestral evolution
of man to worm.

but you look at both kinds of planetary axial spin
progressive and regressive respectively to end up with:

WORM>>MAN>>WORM (evolution)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137579 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The dogma of mutations producing complex adaptations is a myth that has been propagated for decades to justify the tenets of Darwinism.
Mutations are beneficial in science fiction movies...not in the real world.
Teenage mutant Ninja turtles and their rat mentor emerge out of a sewer in fairytales.
In the real world, mutations result in a depressed immune system, non-viability, cancer, etc.
You cannot effectuate positive change by random rearrangements of genetic code. It is mathematically impossible, regardless of whatever power you ascribe to natural selection and genetic drift.
All you can do is hide behind the "millions of years can create anything" fantasy.
Wrong idiot. Again you misused the word dogma. Positive mutations have been observed. There is no argument about that. And you cannot use the word "complex" unless you define it. Would the ability to consume a new food source be a "complex adaptation"? If so that has happened more than once. Would the ability to throw off invasions by a deadly parasite be a complex adaptation, then again we can show it. Many changes are not complex. I would not call the coloring of a dog complex, nor the shape of its nose. That is a very small change.

You use words that you refuse to define. You misuse words all of the time. One more time idiot, there is no "dogma" in evolution. It is fact based. You use the word "complex" and then refuse to say what is complex.

Observed fact makes you a liar. We can observe the genome of a dog and find significant differences between it and a wolf. We can find new genes in the dog genome that are not in the wolf genome. That is an undeniable fact. Small changes add up to become big changes.

Your idiotic claim that you cannot make large scale changes with evolution is equivalent to some idiot claiming that it is impossible to walk from New York to L.A. since the distance is so huge. Small steps add up to be a trip, with wolf to dog small changes add up to large changes. No creator is required.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137580 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never suggested that microevolution exists.
You cling to the ridiculous extrapolation that micro- and macro- differ only in timescales.
That is a self-evident fallacy.
Lenski's experiment documenting citrate utilization in E.coli doesn't suggest that bacteria, given millions of years, can evolve into humans.
Actually it does. We can't help it if you are an idiot. Of course the Lenski experiment is only a small part of that evidence. And if you throw out each piece of evidence without regard to other pieces of evidence it might seem reasonable to a tard. It is not reasonable to someone who can keep track of all of those pieces of evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#137581 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We both agree that ID cannot be falsified.
Then why do you keep attempting the impossible...to falsify God through science?

As you forget on cue, I have no interesting in falsifying God. I acknowledge the existence of God. What I am falsifying it the image of the tiny little god that you carry around in your brain. I am falsifying a god that fundies created in their own image.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your very argument that molecular homology proves common descent is founded on the ASSUMPTION that if life were intelligently designed, the designer would not be constrained by a genetic code.
You have no proof that molecular homologies indicate ancestral relationships.
You only assume it based on our perceived attributes of an intelligent designer.

Molecular homology is an aspect of evolution that science has discovered. I have no more reason to assume it was designed any more than the blue spruce in my front yard was designed.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137582 Jun 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I expect a nested hierarchy of variation in the pseudogene for vitamin C in primates? A nested hierarchy in a basically useless piece of code?
I wouldn't. I wouldn't even expect the pseudogene to be there, frankly, and if that gene or some tiny part of it is still doing something useful, then in a design scenario I would expect just that bit to be there. But for the useless sequence to be gradually changing as per the assumptions of genetic drift and showing exactly the same nested hierarchy that the fossil record shows, well, I guess to me TWO forms of independently converging evidence are slam dunk evidence. Tne add Cyt-C and we have three forms. And so on.
You never really looked at my xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx post and so still ignore the compelling evidence that these changes represent.
As to your last question, then of course I would expect great similarity anatomically. But I still would NOT expect the pattern of differences observed in ubiquitous proteins, pseudogenes, and ERVs (most of which are still useless in spite of your posts showing function for some).
The essential point is, regions of the genome with LOW specificity are what show up the evolutionary relationships.
Ultimately, the entirety of "evidence" you glean from molecular homology rests on the BELIEF that the genetic code is imperfectly (unintelligently) engineered. That is, Chimney, a RELIGIOUS belief, not science.
And why do you ASSUME that most ERVs pseudogenes, transposons, etc., are non-functional? Why do you cling to a dogma that has been repeatedly debunked?. Functions for ERVs are being published every week.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137583 Jun 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot, it is common ancestry not "Genetic homology"
Anyway read what you wrote and you debunk yourself.
Turbotard!
"Genetic homology is a failed argument,
Genetic homology is predicted by ID."
You sound just like Nancy Pelosi, We have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it.
No, ancestry is a label that you've attached to genetic homology.
You're the one who is emulating Pelosi.
You assume evolution is true, then embark on the quest to find naturalistic explanations.
Genetic homology proves nothing.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137584 Jun 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As you forget on cue, I have no interesting in falsifying God. I acknowledge the existence of God. What I am falsifying it the image of the tiny little god that you carry around in your brain. I am falsifying a god that fundies created in their own image.
<quoted text>
Molecular homology is an aspect of evolution that science has discovered. I have no more reason to assume it was designed any more than the blue spruce in my front yard was designed.
Einstein, Newton, Kelvin and other brilliant scientists saw evidence of intelligent design through scientific observation. Your arrogant dismissal of overwhelming evidence only reveals your ignorance.

You assume that a blue spruce tree proofed into existence out of nothing, because you have no concept or appreciation for the complexity of biological systems.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137585 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ancestry is a label that you've attached to genetic homology.
You're the one who is emulating Pelosi.
You assume evolution is true, then embark on the quest to find naturalistic explanations.
Genetic homology proves nothing.
Wrong again, We know that evolution is true from several sources. And they all are independent. We know it from the fossil record. We know it from several nested hierarchies; DNA, ERV's, homology, embryology, and others. We know it from vestigial and atavistic organs. Every piece of our evidence agrees with unrelated evidence. You don't have that unless the phenomenon under examination is real.

Meanwhile you have nothing.

What is your evidence for ID?

What do you mean by ID?

Do you believe in the ID of Behe? If you don't you can not use his work to support your claims.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137586 Jun 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong idiot. Again you misused the word dogma. Positive mutations have been observed. There is no argument .
Your idiotic claim that you cannot make large scale changes with evolution is equivalent to some idiot claiming that it is impossible to walk from New York to L.A. since the distance is so huge. Small steps add up to be a trip, with wolf to dog small changes add up to large changes. No creator is required.
I'll give the correct analogy of your logic.
I can train in one month to jump over a four foot fence.
Therefore, with one year of training I will be able to jump over a 45 foot fence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137587 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ultimately, the entirety of "evidence" you glean from molecular homology rests on the BELIEF that the genetic code is imperfectly (unintelligently) engineered. That is, Chimney, a RELIGIOUS belief, not science.
And why do you ASSUME that most ERVs pseudogenes, transposons, etc., are non-functional? Why do you cling to a dogma that has been repeatedly debunked?. Functions for ERVs are being published every week.
We know that most ERV's are nonfunctional since even the "functional" ones are not really functional. The outskirts of the virus is used by us, not the body of it. That has been observed in the laboratory. I know I have linked articles on it in the past. We know ERV's are viruses because first off they look like a virus. Ask a virologist. Second they have DNA identical with viruses. Lastly because one was "revived".

HST, we have been through this all before. You were wrong then and you are still wrong now.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137588 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give the correct analogy of your logic.
I can train in one month to jump over a four foot fence.
Therefore, with one year of training I will be able to jump over a 45 foot fence.
Nope, you quickly run into recognizable physiological limits. You have never shown any limit to evolution. Your analogy fails.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#137589 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give the correct analogy of your logic.
I can train in one month to jump over a four foot fence.
Therefore, with one year of training I will be able to jump over a 45 foot fence.
Noooooo.

That would be an example of an INCORRECT analogy.

There are limits to human capacity to jump over objects (force of gravity, human musculoskeletal system, yadda, yadda, yadda).

There are no yet identified limits for evolution other than those limits already provided (rate of mutation, time, etc).

You lose.

Again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137590 Jun 21, 2013
And just for HST and his ilk. Fossilization of mammals is very rare. The animals have to be living in an area where the populations live and there is at least occasional rapid deposition. For example, if people did not bury our dead I don't think three is anywhere in the U.S. that would be a good depositional environment for human remains today.

I heard on a YouTube video that the manatee fossil lines is well shown. They can go from a four footed swimming critter, to one with reduced legs, to one with reduced hip bones to today's animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sir...

Of course there are going to be many animals that we don't have full records of and many never have full records. Take the bat for example. It is a small light boned land dwelling animal. The odds of finding a fossilized bat is close to zero.

The creatards will focus on the animals that do not preserve well if at all instead of looking at the animals that did evolve.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#137591 Jun 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ancestry is a label that you've attached to genetic homology.
You're the one who is emulating Pelosi.
You assume evolution is true, then embark on the quest to find naturalistic explanations.
Genetic homology proves nothing.
Here is the original post we were talking about common descent.
You said we only imagined a common ancestor.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

I replied..

It does, it also shares a common birthplace. It all shares DNA
it's all on the same list, or tree of life of the planet Earth.

Evidence of common descent.

Common biochemistry and genetic code..\ It all shares DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent#...

You then debunk yourself saying.

"Genetic homology is a failed argument,
Genetic homology is predicted by ID."

You should go see a doctor, you completely nuts and probably need meds. Backpedaling wont help you. I may have implied more evidence besides common descent of evolution but the subject was your denial of evidence of common descent.

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) 8 min Thinking 6,103
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 min syamsu 187,102
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min One way or another 27,349
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr ChristineM 148,360
News New poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose Unite... Tue Chimney1 10
In the Beginning Did God Create Man or Did Man ... Mon MIDutch 4
News United Methodist Church Under Fire for Banning ... Mon MIDutch 1
More from around the web