Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115853 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry where does it say that ERVs have anything to do with the above nonsense about a virus allowing a host to start replicating - are you nuts.
Want to back up this claim , may as well as you never backed up your lie about the majority of physicians rejecting evolution - one lie can be a mistake , 2 is a habit.
You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115854 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERS's have been proven to have functionality. One, for example, is vital for the proper function of the placenta. The proposal that these segments of genetic code were worthless segments resultant from past parasitic infections requires the conclusion that an ancient mammal was infected by a virus and thereafter acquired the capacity to reproduce.

LOL. Sorry, but no. You have either misunderstood the research or are just copying off a fundy brainwashed creotard site.

The insertion coding does seem to decrease the chance that the placenta will be rejected.

Creationists say the funniest things.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115855 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.

What you have said in the above is that you don't understand ERVs and you really don't understand the scientific method either.

ERVs STILL exist.
ERVs are STILL infecting hosts.
ERVs are STILL inserting portions of their DNA in to said hosts.

All of this is PROVEN science.

Now, if you want to keep babbling about this then find a SCIENTIFIC source that says otherwise.

[sound of crickets chirping]


Point 2: once ERV genetic material is inserted into the host DNA the SAME evolutionary (e.g. mutation) drivers CAN and (eventually) WILL alter that material.

Game, set, match.

Come back when you grow up, kid.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115856 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.
Again you seem to have difficulties in reading my posts - is English not your first language?

I asked you to back up your assertion that science suggests a viral insertion gave its host the ability to reproduce.

No one with even the slightest knowledge of the subject suggests this , so it would suggest it is something you made up.

Care to prove me wrong ?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115857 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You suggest that I'm making a ridiculous suggestion... yet you're the one who believes that a worthless segment of DNA can result in vital functionality to an organism.
DNA homology is a failed argument that has been soundly debunked ages ago. It's founding premise relies on attempted philosophical disproof of intelligent design.

Sorry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biol...

Busted again. You are reading a lot of creotard nonsense but clearly you are not interested in the scientific reality. That is cool, believe what you want, but facts are still facts.

When they have failed at science the creationist all seem to run screaming "philosophy". I wonder why that is.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115858 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.

Translation: You're the one who accepts the proven science of ERVs.

See, when it is translated out of creation-speak into English it is actually a compliment and not the insult you were going for.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115859 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have said in the above is that you don't understand ERVs and you really don't understand the scientific method either.
ERVs STILL exist.
ERVs are STILL infecting hosts.
ERVs are STILL inserting portions of their DNA in to said hosts.
All of this is PROVEN science.
Now, if you want to keep babbling about this then find a SCIENTIFIC source that says otherwise.
[sound of crickets chirping]
Point 2: once ERV genetic material is inserted into the host DNA the SAME evolutionary (e.g. mutation) drivers CAN and (eventually) WILL alter that material.
Game, set, match.
Come back when you grow up, kid.
I predict your crickets will be setting up a Mariaci band and selling singles via iTunes

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115860 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.
You are of course the one making up claims without any evidence. Some ERV's are functional, not all of them. They are jam packed with genetic information, is it any wonder that some of them get used in a helpful way to their host. It seems the vast majority are nonfunctional. If you want to claim that they are all functional you must show it.

Your common sense is nonsensical. I think my situation is much more likely than yours. You, like other cretinists are grabbing at straws and as usual over generalizing. Once again, some ERV's being of use does not mean that all of them are of use. In fact the use of the one ERV was noted partially due to the fact that most ERV's are nonfunctional.

Without any evidence your claims can be wiped away with the back of my hand.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115861 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you seem to have difficulties in reading my posts - is English not your first language?
I asked you to back up your assertion that science suggests a viral insertion gave its host the ability to reproduce.
No one with even the slightest knowledge of the subject suggests this , so it would suggest it is something you made up.
Care to prove me wrong ?

Like so much creationist nonsense the seed of this lie actually contains some, microscopic, truth. There was an ERV insertion discovered that seems to aid the placenta by helping to control estrogen.

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

Of course our friends "understanding" of it is typical creotard drivel.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115862 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.
But a magic all powerful all knowing creator making himself out of nothing for no reason makes perfect sense?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115863 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. None of what you say has been proven. ERVs are not just "functional" to placental implantation, they are vital. The entire premise of ERVs representing past viral infections has relied on the belief that they were nonfunctional. That assumption has been proven false... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. The suggestion that a virus can infect a host, randomly insert its DNA int a germ cell, and result in that junk segment to impart functionality to the host defies common sense.
Right,... just like mold growing accidentally in a petri dish couldn't possibly produce a cure for anything (penicillin) accidents and mutations can have happy consequences as well as dire ones.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115864 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who believes in the absurd ERV paradigm.
Clearly you are a moron. Perhaps it is not your fault. Were you home schooled and your parents left you to do it yourself?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115865 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Like so much creationist nonsense the seed of this lie actually contains some, microscopic, truth. There was an ERV insertion discovered that seems to aid the placenta by helping to control estrogen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...
Of course our friends "understanding" of it is typical creotard drivel.
Interesting stuff, but I fail to see how it translates into 'ALLOWS host to reproduce'- which is what HTS suggests science says.

Seriously - this is delusional on a Jimbo front.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#115866 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting stuff, but I fail to see how it translates into 'ALLOWS host to reproduce'- which is what HTS suggests science says.
Seriously - this is delusional on a Jimbo front.

Remember you have to translate creotard-speak into English first.

It still does not make any sense, but that still has to be the first step.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115867 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have said in the above is that you don't understand ERVs and you really don't understand the scientific method either.
ERVs STILL exist.
ERVs are STILL infecting hosts.
ERVs are STILL inserting portions of their DNA in to said hosts.
All of this is PROVEN science.
Now, if you want to keep babbling about this then find a SCIENTIFIC source that says otherwise.
[sound of crickets chirping]
Point 2: once ERV genetic material is inserted into the host DNA the SAME evolutionary (e.g. mutation) drivers CAN and (eventually) WILL alter that material.
Game, set, match.
Come back when you grow up, kid.
No one is denying that retroviruses infect hosts and insert their DNA into them. What is your point?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115868 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that retroviruses infect hosts and insert their DNA into them. What is your point?
I believe the point was yours, you suggested that science claimed that viral insertion caused the host to gain the ability to reproduce which (presumably) it didn't before.

If this is what you claim science says - then you are lacking in the basics of the subject you are arguing against (evolution)

Which is strange as the basics of biology I would have thought is a prerequisite educationally for a doctor (which I believe you claim you are - or is this just another lie)

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115869 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you come to that preposterous synopsis?
A virus reproduces by taking over a cell, hijacking the DNA of the cell, causing it to reproduce viruses until the cell ruptures.
Sometimes cells with the help of antibodies are able to fight off the infection, but have disrupted DNA as a lingering effect of the battle.
If this cell is a germ cell, the disrupted DNA will be passed on to the children of the organism.
I thought you claimed to be a physician .... a pretty darned poor one if you didn't get this information before.
Probably a metaphysician. You have to give credit where credit is due. Metaphysics was the cutting edge of 15th century medicine.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115870 Feb 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are of course the one making up claims without any evidence. Some ERV's are functional, not all of them. They are jam packed with genetic information, is it any wonder that some of them get used in a helpful way to their host. It seems the vast majority are nonfunctional. If you want to claim that they are all functional you must show it.
Your common sense is nonsensical. I think my situation is much more likely than yours. You, like other cretinists are grabbing at straws and as usual over generalizing. Once again, some ERV's being of use does not mean that all of them are of use. In fact the use of the one ERV was noted partially due to the fact that most ERV's are nonfunctional.
Without any evidence your claims can be wiped away with the back of my hand.
The junk DNA paradigm has collapsed, and your persistence in defending it only reveals your base ignorance. Every one of your strawman arguments has been soundly debunked. Darwinism has been reduced to nothing.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115871 Feb 2, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting stuff, but I fail to see how it translates into 'ALLOWS host to reproduce'- which is what HTS suggests science says.
Seriously - this is delusional on a Jimbo front.
. If you take the time to read this article, which is pro-evolution, you'll understand...
http://wildcat2030.tumblr.com/post/1787818552...
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115872 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Right,... just like mold growing accidentally in a petri dish couldn't possibly produce a cure for anything (penicillin) accidents and mutations can have happy consequences as well as dire ones.
What is your point?

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 Mark Bennett: Community, world knew Bob McDavid... 4 hr Patriots trade Brady 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr Into The Night 95,424
how do i hide my isp location (Oct '07) 10 hr Case File 424
News Stop the noise bleed: Canadian invention limits... Sun Mac 1
News 30-year-old global warming alerts have come tru... Sun Reality Speaks 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Sun VetnorsGate 16,148
News Amazon's annual meeting draws protests from pil... Jun 22 Larry Craig s WC ... 7