Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,187

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." Full Story

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#99093 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So you are categorically excluding all research that is not produced by atheists stooges...
Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism.
Mugwump

York, UK

#99094 Aug 13, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just take the y, x, data points and put it on an Excel spreadsheet and use the Fit Growth function to produce a formula and predict past and future data points. Pretty easy. It's easy to see evolution is impossible to imagine given real, historic data.
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
**********

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99095 Aug 13, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your problem? You think it easy? Try it wise guy.
MBA has always been considered a joke degree.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99096 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes ERV's a part of junk DNA... And that hypothesis has collapsed.
Please provide a SCIENTIFIC link claiming ERVs are "junk DNA".
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99097 Aug 13, 2012
By the way kong, you've proven to be a moron many times over. We don't need more proof, but children must have their meeeeeeeeee time.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#99098 Aug 13, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your problem? You think it easy? Try it wise guy.
Hard for you, I suppose, but you're dumb as a sack of rocks.
Portal

Farmington, MI

#99099 Aug 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
It would be easy for missions like mars to use comparison, to know each planets true gravity. Why hasn't science done so with all it's other landings?
Its based on contact with ITs. The govt knows the truth and science knows the truth. What they cant figure out is why these entities will not contact them but only let humans glimpse their world. The Bible will ensure that any contact is infact....heavenly. Not, real in human terms, just active imaginations....wait isnt the Bible fantasy based?
Mugwump

York, UK

#99100 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes ERV's a part of junk DNA... And that hypothesis has collapsed.
Can you explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS (so that we can be sure you understand it) how ERV's are part of Junk DNA

i.e. how the random insertion of ERV DNA into parts of the distant ancestor host DNA that replicates the observed Nested Hierarchies has anything to do with Junk (non-protein encoding) DNA

In your own words mind.

Thanks in advance
Mugwump

York, UK

#99101 Aug 13, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a SCIENTIFIC link claiming ERVs are "junk DNA".
As in my post above - I think it better if HTS explains it in his own words - as we have seen from Jimbo - he can post stuff but not actually have a clue what he is linking to.

Now if HTS can explain himself why he believes (having read the relevant research) ERVs have anything to do with Junk DNA then I will buy his Tux for the Nobel Awards

Money is safe then
CassandraC

United States

#99102 Aug 13, 2012
Liam R wrote:
It's evolution. It's not like it is rocket science...
you agree to LIES?!? YOU IDIOT!!! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, EINSTEIN?!? IT'S TOTAL LIES MR. WE ALWAYS KNOW EVOLUTION!! PLUS, STUDY MUCH EINSTEIN!!! GOSH, YU PPL ARE SOOOOO GULLIBLE THESE DAYS!!!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99103 Aug 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
By the way kong, you've proven to be a moron many times over. We don't need more proof, but children must have their meeeeeeeeee time.
Uh-huh.

I'll let the casual reader here decide who is the "moron", thankyouverymuch.
CassandraC

United States

#99104 Aug 13, 2012
Iron Ranger wrote:
Absolutely NO "evolution" should be taught in schools.

The so-called theories of evolution have been shown to be false. Darwin made up a lot of "facts." He "filled in" when he had no proof.

God made us.

Don't be odd.
Get with God!
you are soooooo right dude!!! Cannot believe it!! In your face evolutioners!!!
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99105 Aug 13, 2012
Evolutionists claim that retroviral DNA provides irrefutable evidence for a universal Common descend and specifically between humans and Chimps (Chimps are suppose to be our closer relative.)
1) First of all it is important to mention that the similarities within retroviral DNA where not predicted by scientists, this &#769; &#769;prediction &#769; &#769; was made after the fact was discovered, for example evolutionists did not predict that chimps and humans should share a certain number of Endogenous Retroviruses, they simply use it as evidence for evolution after the similarities where discovered.
2) An other objection; is that retroviral DNA does not show an apparent link between mammals and other classes of animals, and in fact the difference between retro genes in vertebrates and invertebrates is very significant, and the supposed retro genes in invertebrates are not even considered ERVs by some scientists.
This is a very important point because if evolutionists claim that retroviral DNA proves that all mammals have a common ancestor then, if we use the same logic, retroviral DNA disproves the idea of mammals having a common ancestor with other classes. For example evolutionary theory claims that fish and humans have a common ancestor however they do not share any ERVs as we would expect if evolution is true.
To overcome this claim, evolutionists claim that since fish and humans share a very old ancestor, they share very old ERVs therefore these ERVs had enough time to evolve independently in humans and their ancestors and modern fish and their ancestor, and since the common ancestor between humans and other mammals, and specifically with other primates is relatively young, ERVs did not evolve (change) too much. However evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can change, and they fail to provide a mechanism in which and ERV can change so drastically and pass it to the next generation, but there is not evidence supporting this claim. This argument also assumes evolution to be true, so which one is it?
a) ERVs prove evolution
b) Evolution proves ERV
In other words if evolutionists are using retroviral DNA to prove evolution, then they can not assume evolution in their arguments.

http://swordandshield.biz/endogenous_retrovir...
HTS

Williston, ND

#99106 Aug 13, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a SCIENTIFIC link claiming ERVs are "junk DNA".
Here is one from Georgia tech: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html...

It is also in the wiki (very pro-evolution) under "retroviruses"
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99107 Aug 13, 2012
When you look for an answer, go to the basics, the core. Never get caught up in unprovable minusha or the majority will hold you down and pound on you.

Give them no room to refute.
HTS

Williston, ND

#99108 Aug 13, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS (so that we can be sure you understand it) how ERV's are part of Junk DNA
i.e. how the random insertion of ERV DNA into parts of the distant ancestor host DNA that replicates the observed Nested Hierarchies has anything to do with Junk (non-protein encoding) DNA
In your own words mind.
Thanks in advance
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.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99109 Aug 13, 2012
It's either this or that, yes or no.
Psychology

Danielson, CT

#99110 Aug 13, 2012
Good, before my post came out.

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.

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
How to Recover iTunes Lost Data for iPhone iPad... (May '13) 1 hr Lora_14 9
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr thetruth 14,507
what is light? 6 hr cody 12
The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely... (Jan '13) 9 hr alexandria0123 25
Bluetooth tech for wearable device 10 hr Davinci1000 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 11 hr Good-Evil 5,973
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 12 hr NobodyYouKnow 28,060
More from around the web