Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99132 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How was I wrong about pterosaurs? I've been looking on the Internet for any plausible mechanism of transmutation from a dinosaur, and can't find anything. That is because no one can propose any conceivable pathway.
It's amusing how atheists claim to love science, yet always try to steer the conversation to religion.
You asked a foolish question. You assumed that evolutionists thought that birds evolved from pterosaurs. If you were not too lazy to look at the link I provided you would have seen that pterosaurs were reptiles, not dinosaurs. pterosaurs were a genetic dead end. Don't worry, as a guess at least 99% of life ends up in a genetic dead end

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99133 Aug 13, 2012
And HTS's first article hardly supports his claim. Here is a link to the actual abstract of the article. I could not access it in its entirety:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99134 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no no. Make a link. I should not have to search down your source myself.
Abstract for HTS's first source:

Sources: Conley, A.B., Piriapongsa, J., and Jordan, I.K.,"Retroviral Promoters in the Human Genome",

Retroviral promoters in the human genome.

Conley AB, Piriyapongsa J, Jordan IK.

Source

School of Biology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 310 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30306, USA.

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Endogenous retrovirus (ERV) elements have been shown to contribute promoter sequences that can initiate transcription of adjacent human genes. However, the extent to which retroviral sequences initiate transcription within the human genome is currently unknown. We analyzed genome sequence and high-throughput expression data to systematically evaluate the presence of retroviral promoters in the human genome. RESULTS: We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs). A total of 114 of the ERV-derived transcription start sites can be demonstrated to drive transcription of 97 human genes, producing chimeric transcripts that are initiated within ERV long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences and read-through into known gene sequences. ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome
HTS

Mandan, ND

#99135 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
What HTS has been trying to ignore in this debate, or cover up with a smoke screen, is that the retroviruses we share with chimps are on exactly the same spot in the genome. Even if he was right the presence of exact same location of retroviruses is all but proof positive of shared ancestry. Again, creationists have no answer to this fact.
No, it's proof of genetic homology, which proves nothing. Nineteenth century biologists new that humans and chimps looked similar. Your "proof" is nothing more than a restatement of what has been known for centuries.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99136 Aug 13, 2012
Thanks Kong, but as you see I found it by myself. I did not even bother to check on his other source.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99137 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic demonstrates why most "evidence" for evolution is flawed. The evolutionist hypothesis is that imperfect DNA disproves intelligent design. You're only playing god and imagining how an intelligent creator would create life... something you know absolutely nothing about
Jacked up DNA is eviedence of a jacked up designer.

Make up your mind.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#99138 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
Thousands of functions, some vital, have been proven for ERV's. The viral insertion hypothesis requires that thousands of sequences of nucleotides randomly inserted into DNA resulted in an impossibility... Purposeful functionality. You can't randomly insert digital code into any existing program and result in improved information.
Are you claiming that ERV inserts don't come from viruses?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99139 Aug 13, 2012
It looks like HST is heading towards Last Tuesdayism. Now there is no way to refute Last Tuesdayism, but of course that is not the point. Last Tuesdayism is a scientific dead end. Our evidence for evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger over the years and creationist claims keep getting lamer and lamer.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99140 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's proof of genetic homology, which proves nothing. Nineteenth century biologists new that humans and chimps looked similar. Your "proof" is nothing more than a restatement of what has been known for centuries.
Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your imaginary Lord and Savior?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#99141 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's proof of genetic homology, which proves nothing. Nineteenth century biologists new that humans and chimps looked similar. Your "proof" is nothing more than a restatement of what has been known for centuries.
If Evolution never happened, does that mean that each and every species on Earth was created individually? And did every species now existing exist from the beginning, or was the creation staggered?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#99142 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked a foolish question. You assumed that evolutionists thought that birds evolved from pterosaurs. If you were not too lazy to look at the link I provided you would have seen that pterosaurs were reptiles, not dinosaurs. pterosaurs were a genetic dead end. Don't worry, as a guess at least 99% of life ends up in a genetic dead end
You keep dodging the question. I never implied that pterosaurs evolved into birds. I'm challenging you to provide a scientifically logical pathway as to how pterosaurs evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs. Good luck... No one else can do it.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99143 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep dodging the question. I never implied that pterosaurs evolved into birds. I'm challenging you to provide a scientifically logical pathway as to how pterosaurs evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs. Good luck... No one else can do it.
Fat feet.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99144 Aug 13, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Small populations mean fewer generations and fewer mutations means the basic mechanism for macroevolution is missing. So you're screwed either way.
When the reason for populations to be small is that they are stressed (starvation, desease, etc.) genetic instability will produce a greater number of variables.

Those varibles, in a small population, will have a greater chance of taking hold rather than being absorbed (as might happen in a larger population).

Many stressed populations simply go extinct. The choice is stark. Either get lucky and adapt or die off.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99145 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How was I wrong about pterosaurs? I've been looking on the Internet for any plausible mechanism of transmutation from a dinosaur, and can't find anything. That is because no one can propose any conceivable pathway.
It's amusing how atheists claim to love science, yet always try to steer the conversation to religion.
Pterosaurs are not understood to have evolved from dinosaurs. Like dinos, they evolved from an earlier different branch of reptiles.

Do we lack evidence of the specific links? Perhaps. However, since we have a solid series of intermediates from:

1. reptiles to reptile like mammals to early mammals, and
2. reptiles to archosaurs to early dinosaurs
3. lobe finned fish to early tetrapods

and other smaller transitions such as apes to hominids, land mammals to whales, etc...

Then I am not too concerned about the transition from reptiles to pterosaurs. The principle is the same.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99146 Aug 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Uh, it seems you made another friend. Dogen meet sub d.
Your friends are back sub d.
Psychology | 5 min ago
Your little friend mikey wanted me to remind everyone, so I'll be reminding you quite often.
Psychology | 1 hr ago
More of subductions wisdom follows.
Psychology wrote:
Why does the earth spin, is it because it makes the earth happy? Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.
Subduction says,---
No, the Earth spins because objects orbiting farther away from the Sun have a different velocity than objects orbiting nearer the Sun.
Psychology says, oooooh, so that's why the earth spins, because for all but a moron, that was the question.
Frikken genius I tell ya---hahahahahahaha
Let's put an end to this nonsense. You think you are mocking Subduction, but in reality your attempt at mocking only shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.

The angular momentum of other objects in space does in fact affect the rotation of the earth.

http://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-t...

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#99147 Aug 13, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay - done that -(have used the growth(Known Y's,[Known X's],[New X's],[Const]) function (think you need to ensure the analysis add-on is installed - This Excel 2010)
A few observations
a) from -10,000 BC to 1500 AD (*****11,150 years******) the % growth per decade is ~1-2%
b) This then Increases from 5% to 22% rapidly from 1800 to 1999 (****199****** years)(look-up Industrial / Agricultural revolution)
c) The growth function seems to not that closely predict actual population rates as seen in the real data
e.g.
AD 500 - gives 299Million compared to 190Mill (from raw data)
AD 1999 - gives 770M compared to 6Billion
BC 10,000 -> BC 1000 - is >100% out for each of the data-points
Now a few questions
Given the above - does your approach of Ignoring fluctuating growth rates seem to produce a good fit?
Since your own approach seems to show a population of 731 - in 20,000 BC - doesn't this either
a) prove there is something wrong with your simplistic formula
b) illustrate that the whole YEC account (and indeed the biblical account)- is now proved wrong - using REAL WORLD OBSERVED DATA
NOTE : you cant say No to A) without saying Yes to B)
**********
Note for others - I am well aware that mucking about with numbers from some 10K years is NOT enough to even attempt to model population over millions of years - am just trying to illustrate this point to UC
**********
I tried reading the whole thing. Numbers are not my strong point. I think I hurt my brain.

<<reaches for meds>>

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#99148 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ERV's have long been considered junk DNA by evolutionists because they are non-coding and because they are PRESUMED to represent parasitic infections of the ancient past. It was therefore assumed that they had no function.
In recent years, thousands of important functions have been found, which demolishes the entire paradigm of "viral insertions". Now some evolutionists have declassified them as "junk" because they know they have functions. 20 years ago, they were universally classified as junk DNA.
No, a tiny few ERV's have been found to be functional in some respect. Not unlikely, considering that they wrap themselves into the genetic machinery and will cause some changes, and some of these changes, just like random mutations, may turn out to have a beneficial effect.

However, as far as we know, the vast majority are useless.
Psychology

Ardsley, NY

#99150 Aug 14, 2012
So glad to see you understand.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#99151 Aug 14, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay - done that -(have used the growth(Known Y's,[Known X's],[New X's],[Const]) function (think you need to ensure the analysis add-on is installed - This Excel 2010)
A few observations
a) from -10,000 BC to 1500 AD (*****11,150 years******) the % growth per decade is ~1-2%
b) This then Increases from 5% to 22% rapidly from 1800 to 1999 (****199****** years)(look-up Industrial / Agricultural revolution)
c) The growth function seems to not that closely predict actual population rates as seen in the real data
e.g.
AD 500 - gives 299Million compared to 190Mill (from raw data)
AD 1999 - gives 770M compared to 6Billion
BC 10,000 -> BC 1000 - is >100% out for each of the data-points
Now a few questions
Given the above - does your approach of Ignoring fluctuating growth rates seem to produce a good fit?
Since your own approach seems to show a population of 731 - in 20,000 BC - doesn't this either
a) prove there is something wrong with your simplistic formula
b) illustrate that the whole YEC account (and indeed the biblical account)- is now proved wrong - using REAL WORLD OBSERVED DATA
NOTE : you cant say No to A) without saying Yes to B)
**********
Note for others - I am well aware that mucking about with numbers from some 10K years is NOT enough to even attempt to model population over millions of years - am just trying to illustrate this point to UC
**********
It shouldn't predict real observed data as it was derived from it. When I do it, it fits the data, so if I give a new x in between known it should fit. Yes, it goes on to the future exponentially and yes in the past is flat. This confirms my point. That if evolution were true, and we applied actual exponential growth to world populations, if we gave an x of 10 million years ago, the whole universe would be filled with bodies. It's simply impossible - based on real observed data. This also shows that evolution can not keep with uniformatarianism in this case but must introduce numerous repeated catastrophies to work.(Again, not keeping with uniformatarianism)

My Biology text uses differential calculus for the equation for exponential growth (what we observe) as dN/dt = Tmax^N for the world population at any given point in time. The graph looks the same with dN/dt = about 0.5N. You get a J-shaped curve for natural exponential growth. This has also been observed with elephants of Kruger National Park, South Africa.

-Biology 8th Edition, Campbell Reece, Page, 1182-1183

Since: Aug 07

United States

#99152 Aug 14, 2012
Great, so this confirms, more or less, what I did a few weeks ago. I said 17 times, you say 18 times. The difference is insignificant.

However, there is something very profound about these illustrations. Recall our Moon recession debates? Recall that as we go backward in time and the Moon's orbit becomes closer and closer to the Earth, the gravitational interaction between the two causes the Earth's rotation to increase accordingly? About 1 billion years ago, how close would we be to that 17 times rotation speed? Interesting how evolution could have occurred if all the bloody animals couldn't even stay planted on the ground! Yeah! Gotcha!

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
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 15 min gwww 13
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 40,224
News Kickass Torrents' huge file sharing site shut d... 3 hr filip3ff 1
News Lots of Wheat But Not Enough Protein Sends Buye... 3 hr Joe Balls 2
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 4 hr North Mountain 149
News Contra Costa: DA says Irish Mafia founder put a... 6 hr Anita Cordova 1
News Is 'gospel' NASA's 'codeword for aliens'? 8 hr Earth Whisperer 2
More from around the web