Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#68123 Aug 15, 2011
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You're easy.

Lets keep my lack of sexual restraint out of the discussion, shall we.

Since: Aug 07

Rowland Heights, CA

#68124 Aug 15, 2011
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.

Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design); gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely); degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.

Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.

“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”

Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.

Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.

“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“

“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.

Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.

Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68125 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design); gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely); degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.
Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.
“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”
Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.
Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
So, what are the standards to get an article published in "Journal of Creation?"

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#68126 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design); gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely); degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.
Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.
“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”
Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.
Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
There is no 'Gain of Function' requirement in evolution. Your entire argument collapses because it is based on a false premise.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#68127 Aug 15, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what are the standards to get an article published in "Journal of Creation?"
A statistical analysis of the number of shovels needed for Ark shít would be featured on the cover.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#68128 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Bummer you don't have an original thought of your own.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

#68129 Aug 15, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what are the standards to get an article published in "Journal of Creation?"
Fifty bucks?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68130 Aug 15, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifty bucks?
Check this out: Give $5 for 5. Although this article may have only taken 5 minutes to read, it could have taken over 5 hours to write.( http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-forme... )

Anybody know the last time a peer-reviewed scientific journal included begging for donations because the article might have taken *GASP* 5 hours to write?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#68131 Aug 15, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what are the standards to get an article published in "Journal of Creation?"
There aren't any! Just the sort of place the Cowardly Ly'in would dig up to justify his anti-science belief system.
clem

Hamilton, Canada

#68133 Aug 15, 2011
Dark ages here we come. The earth is flat.
The Dude

UK

#68136 Aug 15, 2011
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but this is wrongly computed. If the chance of sharing one marker is 1 in 1.5 billion and different markers are independent, then the chance of sharing two markers is 1 in (1.5 billion)*(1.5 billion)=2.25 quintillion. You don't double the odds, you square them. To share four would be 1 in (1.5 billion)^4 =5*10^36, OR 5 UNDECILLION.
Whoopsie. My bad, I do totally suck at math.

Which is not good for Cowboy. Sorry.
The Dude

UK

#68137 Aug 15, 2011
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the seeds in my tree analogy, they get planted in fertile soil wherever the seeds may be carried to. They do NOT look for THE PERFECT location as if they know what they are looking for.
<quoted text>
Excellent post. As usual.
Gracias.
The Dude

UK

#68138 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design)
A baseless claim of intelligent design.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely)
False (demonstrated in a mo).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.
Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.
“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”
Goalpost moving and general misrepresentation of examples of evolution, as creationists are theologically required to dismiss evidence a priori.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.
Error correcting mechanisms do not prevent mutations. Hence why we are all born with them, and hence why we're not all clones. Therefore they aren't sufficient to prevent evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.
Irreducible Complexity = EPIC FAIL.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Finale of straw-men. I really don't have to remind anyone that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Of course we did notice this was an attempt to misdirect from the fact you have no alternative explanation for ERV's other than magic.
The Dude

UK

#68139 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely)
Actually highly likely:
Katydid wrote:
Easy, one word SETMAR. The SETMAR gene was reported as a chimera when discovered in 1997. It is made up of genes encoding a SET domain protein properly fused with the coding region of a jumping gene from a family of genes called mariner transposons. The particular member of this family was a gene called Hsmar1 and the part of it that was properly fused with the SET coding gene,was the transposase-coding region called MAR. By “properly fused” I mean that the genetic transcribing mechanism could start at the beginning of the SET region and correctly read through the MAR region, before hitting a “stop”.
Research published in PNAS shows the mechanics of how the process of evolution actually occurs, i.e. the development of new information by the creation of a NEW GENE by the fusion of parts from two other genes, the key role was played by “jumping genes” or “transposons” and our bodies contain billions of these.
Their research provides direct evidence showing how a new gene evolved rapidly (over some 18 million years, yes, this is rapid in evolution), starting 58 million years ago.
They are able to show the evolution of the gene by comparing the genetic sequences of different species, looking at the introns and exons, where the genetic material is copied and pasted or cut and pasted.
Additional experiments have demonstrated that SETMAR is a widely expressed gene. They know that SET is involved in helping chromatin (our chromosomes) operate properly. As to what MAR does, this is hypothesized.
The transposase region of a transposon has two parts, the DNA binding region and the DNA cutting region, to help the transposon do a cut and paste of itself.
When they looked closely at the transposon the researchers noted that the DNA binding region is not changing much but the DNA cutting region is changing quite rapidly. Evolution has no interest in the cutting region so it is mutating and degrading, evolution though needs to retain the binding region, keeping it unchanged.
The researchers show that the human genome has many, potential SETMAR binding sites and hypothesized that SETMAR behaves as SET except that it does things much more efficiently. Where as SET relies on other proteins to carry out its functions, SETMAR, by using MAR, is able to bind directly to the human genome, allowing the SET to do its job, without needing those other proteins. So SET works well, but SETMAR does the job better, faster, more efficiently.
End of part 1
The Dude

UK

#68140 Aug 15, 2011
Part the second:
Katydid wrote:
Part TWO:
Quote:
Conclusion
In sum, our results show that the transposase of a mobile element has become part of a functional primate gene through a stepwise evolutionary process involving transposition and subsequent transcriptional and translational fusion. Comparative sequence analysis and functional assays strongly suggest that selection has acted to preserve the specific DNA-binding activity of the ancestral transposase, whereas its catalytic activity has likely been lost. Interestingly, BLAST searches of the human genome sequence revealed the presence of 752 and 760 sequences identical and with a single mismatch, respectively, to the 19-bp MAR-binding site. These data suggest that the human genome contains an enormous reservoir of potential SETMAR binding sites, 97% of which lie within the TIRs of recognizable Hsmar1 transposons and their derivatives (data not shown). This observation raises the possibility that the recruitment of the MAR DNA-binding domain may have provided an opportunity for the corecruitment of a network of DNA binding sites to which the fusion SETMAR protein now could be tethered. The SET domain of SETMAR methylates histone H3 predominantly at lysine 36 (15), an epigenetic mark that in yeast has a repressive impact on transcription elongation by RNA polymerase II and prevents spurious intragenic transcription from cryptic promoters (32, 33). Thus, the transposase-derived DNA-binding domain of SETMAR may have provided a means to target methylation of histone H3 at lysine 36 to particular sites in the genome where it could affect gene expression or other biological processes.
Unquote:
Work Cited:
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / EVOLUTION
Birth of a chimeric primate gene by capture of the transposase gene from a mobile element
Richard Cordaux*, Swalpa Udit , Mark A. Batzer*, and Cédric Feschotte,*Department of Biological Sciences, Biological Computation and Visualization Center, Center for BioModular Multi-Scale Systems, Louisiana State University, 202 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; and Department of Biology, University of Texas, Arlington, TX 76019
Edited by Susan R. Wessler, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, and approved March 27, 2006 (received for review February 10, 2006)
PNAS | May 23, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 21 | 8101-8106
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/21/8...
The Dude

UK

#68141 Aug 15, 2011
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Bummer you don't have an original thought of your own.
At least he gave reference this time.

“Jump in! The water's perfect:)”

Since: Oct 10

Cleveland, Honolulu, Africa

#68142 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy

Have you ever noticed the differences in people from different latitudes? There would appear to be a gain of information involved in the manifestations of their differences.

For example dark skinned/brown eyed people from middle latitudes have better protection from the suns harmful rays. This is advantageous for them because their ancestry is from areas that receive the most intense sunlight over the course of their lifetime.

People with ancestry from northern latitudes have lighter skin, and light pigment eye color is far more prevalent than brown. Light pigment allows more sunlight to be absorbed by the skin which helps in the production of vitamin D. Light eye color pigments allow more light to enter the eye which helps vision on dark winter days. This is obviously a direct result of lower sunlight levels in these areas that one can expect to see in their lifetime.

Just an example of beneficial mutations as early humans migrated out of Africa.
Chimney

UAE

#68143 Aug 15, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design); gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely); degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.
Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.
“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”
Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.
Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.
Never mind the obvious errors in THIS post.

The reality is you have run away from the ERV argument because you have no explanation that works. ERV's choose the smae place on the genome:FALSE. The nested hierarchy is any old pattern: FALSE.

An honest person would look at this and understand that what you have is incredibly strong evidence for common ancestry. A dishonest one blank out this uncomfortable evidence and will run away to another argument that he hopes will divert attention from ERV's, which he has no real answer for. You do this all the time.

You think that by merely not admitting defeat, you are not defeated. It doesn't work like that in the real world UC. You have been ass-whooped.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#68144 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolution requires gain-of-information (GOF) mutations (and the development of new functions) but evolutionists can’t come up with any valid examples to demonstrate it.
Often cited are some bad examples, including adaptive immunity (an excellent example of intelligent design); gene duplication (not impossible but vanishingly unlikely); degraded information (sickle cell anemia, aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria, nylon digestion by bacteria; and the tired, old evolutionist standby: antibiotic resistance in bacteria. None of these examples are satisfactory evidence for an increase in biological complexity over time.
Adaptive immunity, homologous recombination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and sickle-cell anemia in humans have all been used as examples, but each of them fails to meet the requirements of GOF.
“The general lack of examples, even theoretical examples, of something absolutely required by evolution is strong testimony against the validity of evolutionary theory.”
Also, DNA with no function or impaired function is ripe for deletion or elimination by error correcting mechanisms.
Also, there are numerous chicken and egg problems. Complex genetic and cellular machines have to start from scratch or nothing will work. They have to be balanced and regulated with respect to other processes and they have to work before they will be kept.
“Damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken).“
“There are no known examples of the types of information-gaining mutations necessary for large-scale evolutionary processes.” Every example known is of something breaking.
Evolution cannot explain how the genome came about and mutations cannot be used to explain evolution.
Excerpts from “Carter, Robert W., Can Mutations Create New Information?” Journal of Creation 25(2) 2011.

First of all, is this an admission that all of your other arguments to date have been abject failures?

Second of all, if I take the time to go through and refute this nonsense, point by point, will you even read it or the supporting links I would provide?

By read I mean READ, as in for comprehension PRIOR to trying to look for counter arguments.

If yes than I will take the time. If no I will just view this and another pseudoscience mouse flipping off the eagle with outstretched talons.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#68145 Aug 16, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what are the standards to get an article published in "Journal of Creation?"

1. complete lack of scientific understanding or appropriate credentials.
2. ability to produce drool on cue.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
4 Biometric Solutions can Cut Cost & Enhance Ef... 29 min iritechinc 1
How to recover deleted text messages and photos... (Oct '14) 1 hr Beafftt 16
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr nanoanomaly 6,646
4 Biggest Challenges Microsoft RDS Users Face 14 hr gnasrof 1
News Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 21 hr Earthling-1 28,244
How to recover deleted data from samung? (Oct '14) Tue lpou 15
Transfer Music/Songs from iPhone to Android pho... (Apr '13) Mon EricMorren 31
More from around the web