Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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: Aug 07

United States

#99112 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one from Georgia tech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html...
It is also in the wiki (very pro-evolution) under "retroviruses"
It's amazing. It's like typical evolution propaganda talking points. They just parrot the assigned script and don't even know what they're saying.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99113 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one from Georgia tech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html...
It is also in the wiki (very pro-evolution) under "retroviruses"
So at least in that one paragraph from Ga Tech, it appears that this is an example of science correcting itself:

“Transposable elements were once considered ‘junk DNA’ with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees.”

Also, this tidbit from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

"Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA". However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely, but as-yet undetermined, functions (this is inferred from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but, nonetheless, appear to be under heavy selective pressure). While this indicates that noncoding DNA should not be indiscriminately referred to as junk DNA, the lack of sequence conservation in a majority of noncoding DNA with no known function indicates that much of it may indeed be without function."

"Endogenous retrovirus sequences are the product of reverse transcription of retrovirus genomes into the genomes of germ cells. Mutation within these retro-transcribed sequences can inactivate the viral genome.

Over 8% of the human genome is made up of (mostly decayed) endogenous retrovirus sequences, as part of the over 42% fraction that is recognizably derived of retrotransposons, while another 3% can be identified to be the remains of DNA transposons. Much of the remaining half of the genome that is currently without an explained origin is expected to have found its origin in transposable elements that were active so long ago (> 200 million years) that random mutations have rendered them unrecognizable."

<<end cut/paste>>

So yes, while the term "Junk DNA" was coined by a scientist in 1972, and portions of the genome were thought to have no purpose -- and some portions STILL do not seem to have any useful purpose -- we have learned much since then, and have corrected ourselves.

Finally, the fact that we once called noncoding DNA (including ERVs) "Junk DNA", does nothing to refute the use of ERVs as evidence of common descent.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99114 Aug 13, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So at least in that one paragraph from Ga Tech, it appears that this is an example of science correcting itself:
“Transposable elements were once considered ‘junk DNA’ with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees.”
.
Finally, the fact that we once called noncoding DNA (including ERVs) "Junk DNA", does nothing to refute the use of ERVs as evidence of common descent.
1. You need to stop equating "science" with "evolution"
2. Functionality of ERV'S demolishes the paradigm that they represent random parasitic infections. What
you're left with is only molecular homology... Which definitely does not prove common descent because
It is entirely predictive of intelligent design. It also destroys the long held idea by evolutionists that
a hodgepodge of random mutations can produce anything purposeful. Many geneticists believe hat 100% of
DNA Is functional.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99115 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one from Georgia tech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html...
It is also in the wiki (very pro-evolution) under "retroviruses"
The fundie hypothesis is 'perfect' DNA would be evidence for God.

This is a non sequitur.

Furthermore, DNA is far from 'perfect'.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99116 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You need to stop equating "science" with "evolution"
2. Functionality of ERV'S demolishes the paradigm that they represent random parasitic infections. What
you're left with is only molecular homology... Which definitely does not prove common descent because
It is entirely predictive of intelligent design. It also destroys the long held idea by evolutionists that
a hodgepodge of random mutations can produce anything purposeful. Many geneticists believe hat 100% of
DNA Is functional.
1. Sorry, evolution is based on science. If you are against evolution you are against science.

2. How so? Very often the functionality of ERV's is negative. Does that still "demolish" the fact that they are due to viral infections?

Why do you keep lying about things you have no idea about? You cannot find publications that support you. At best you try to quote mine and claim it supports your belief that a bunch of bronze age sheep herders knew what they were talking about.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99117 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You need to stop equating "science" with "evolution"
2. Functionality of ERV'S demolishes the paradigm that they represent random parasitic infections. What
you're left with is only molecular homology... Which definitely does not prove common descent because
It is entirely predictive of intelligent design. It also destroys the long held idea by evolutionists that
a hodgepodge of random mutations can produce anything purposeful. Many geneticists believe hat 100% of
DNA Is functional.
1. No he doesn't.
2. Hodgepodge of random bullshít.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99118 Aug 13, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundie hypothesis is 'perfect' DNA would be evidence for God.
This is a non sequitur.
Furthermore, DNA is far from 'perfect'.
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
HTS

Williston, ND

#99119 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Sorry, evolution is based on science. If you are against evolution you are against science.
2. How so? Very often the functionality of ERV's is negative. Does that still "demolish" the fact that they are due to viral infections?
Why do you keep lying about things you have no idea about? You cannot find publications that support you. At best you try to quote mine and claim it supports your belief that a bunch of bronze age sheep herders knew what they were talking about.
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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99120 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You need to stop equating "science" with "evolution".
Then you're going to be quite frustrated, as the VAST majority of scientists, including those persons of faith having professional positions in relevant areas of science accept the Theory of Evolution (over 99.9%). It has also been repeatedly shown here that clergy (Christian and otherwise) also accept the Theory of Evolution -- AS SCIENCE.

So you can drop the "Evolution = Atheist" bit.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>2. Functionality of ERV'S demolishes the paradigm that they represent random parasitic infections. What you're left with is only molecular homology... Which definitely does not prove common descent because it is entirely predictive of intelligent design. It also destroys the long held idea by evolutionists that
a hodgepodge of random mutations can produce anything purposeful.
"There is no question that some ERVs have functions in organisms, but there are no wholly functional ERVs—only functional components, with the remainder deleted or mutated into non-functionality."

ERVs USED to be functional -- as a virus that within a generation or two became NON-Functional. The fact that ERVs are genetically passed down in specific spots on the genome ABSOLUTELY provides evidence for common descent.

"The three layers of ERV evidence are: 1) the sharing of ERVs in identical loci among organisms of varying degrees of taxonomic separation, and the nested hierarchies that these shared ERVs are arranged in; 2) the examination of shared mutagenic discrepancies between shared ERVs, so as to infer relative sequence of insertion; and 3) the nested hierarchies of shared mutations among given ERVs in identical loci." http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Many geneticists believe that 100% of DNA Is functional.
I have no problem with dismissing the notion of "nonfunctional DNA" as more information is discovered.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#99121 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen, my suggestion to you is to stop posting regurgitated atheist BS and try to formulate at least one logical, coherent sentence. From the contents of your last post, you obviously are incapable of thinking for hourself. You are embarrassing all of your ignorant counterparts.
I noticed you dropped the quote mine subject. Sucks to be busted out, doersn't it?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99122 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one from Georgia tech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html...
It is also in the wiki (very pro-evolution) under "retroviruses"
Your article had nothing to do with retroviruses. It did mention "retrotransposons", here is a hint HTS, retrotransposons are not retro viruses. Nor does it claim that they are anywhere in that article.

Another HTS fail.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99123 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, source please. And even if that is the case luckily for us the genetic code is not digital. The functionality only shows that animals have found a way to use the new genetic information from the retro virus.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99124 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your article had nothing to do with retroviruses. It did mention "retrotransposons", here is a hint HTS, retrotransposons are not retro viruses. Nor does it claim that they are anywhere in that article.
Another HTS fail.
Yes they a e. The theory of ERV's is transposable viral insertions.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99125 Aug 13, 2012
HTS, why haven't you apologized for being wrong about the pterosaur yet?

As I said, I don't like dishonest people. HTS is showing himself to be more and more dishonest. He is probably a Christian, but he is afraid to admit it. He knows he is lying and breaking the rules of his own fairy tales.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99126 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, source please. And even if that is the case luckily for us the genetic code is not digital. The functionality only shows that animals have found a way to use the new genetic information from the retrovirus.
Sources: Conley, A.B., Piriapongsa, J., and Jordan, I.K.,"Retroviral Promoters in the Human Genome",
Bioinformatics 24 (14): pg. 1563, 2008

Doyle, Shaun, "Large Scale Function for 'Endogenous Retroviruses' ", Journal of Creation 22(3)2008

You imagine that animals found a way to use parasitic leftovers... That is not science. If you propose such an incredible story, then you need evidence that such is even possible.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99127 Aug 13, 2012
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.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99128 Aug 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS, why haven't you apologized for being wrong about the pterosaur yet?
As I said, I don't like dishonest people. HTS is showing himself to be more and more dishonest. He is probably a Christian, but he is afraid to admit it. He knows he is lying and breaking the rules of his own fairy tales.
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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99129 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes they a e. The theory of ERV's is transposable viral insertions.
Not in any article I have seen. So once again, source please.

Please note your article said "virus like". Geneticists can tell the difference between a virus and something like a virus. If it was a retrovirus it would have said so.

Poor reading comprehension strikes again? We'll see.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99130 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sources: Conley, A.B., Piriapongsa, J., and Jordan, I.K.,"Retroviral Promoters in the Human Genome",
Bioinformatics 24 (14): pg. 1563, 2008
Doyle, Shaun, "Large Scale Function for 'Endogenous Retroviruses' ", Journal of Creation 22(3)2008
You imagine that animals found a way to use parasitic leftovers... That is not science. If you propose such an incredible story, then you need evidence that such is even possible.
No, no no. Make a link. I should not have to search down your source myself.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99131 Aug 13, 2012
Journal of Creation

LMAO. Massive fail by HTS.

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
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 19 min Walter Harold Marlin 268
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 1 hr positronium 7,365
News Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulates ISRO... 1 hr SpaceBlues 1
News Expert: Expect sea levels to rise 3 feet 1 hr SpaceBlues 3
News Names of 2 legislators, ex-justice on users list 4 hr Stevens Hacking C... 3
News Buzz Aldrin joins university, forming 'master p... 4 hr Chuck Putin - Hea... 2
News Gizmodo writer Annalee Newitz analyzes the hack... 6 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
More from around the web