Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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

#114539 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.

Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.

Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.

Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.

It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.

At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114540 Jan 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Urb can you just point to the parts of the papers that
A) suggest 2B Dino DNA Base pairs
B) where Dr Schweitzer quoted the amount (would need to be the number of base pairs I guess) of DNA remaining
Thanks

He likes picking numbers out of his arse that seem to support his contention. He is a true pseudoscientific, creationist, through and through. Kent Hovind would be proud of him.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114541 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.
Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.
Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.
It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.
At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.
Nonsense.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114542 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He likes picking numbers out of his arse that seem to support his contention. He is a true pseudoscientific, creationist, through and through. Kent Hovind would be proud of him.
Lying dope.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114543 Jan 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Urb can you just point to the parts of the papers that
A) suggest 2B Dino DNA Base pairs
B) where Dr Schweitzer quoted the amount (would need to be the number of base pairs I guess) of DNA remaining
Thanks
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114544 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.

LOL. You even know you are wrong. Hysterical.

Welcome to real science. It takes real study and real work.

How is your biology study coming?

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, science does not work this way. I have explained a number of things wrong with just slapping numbers into a formula and why that does not past mustard in real science.
Further the Dino DNA remnants indicate that the Dinos in question were at least 1.5 million years old (how long it takes for aggrated DNA to become unreadable) base on the hypothized 521 year half life.
Even worse for you is that the 521 year estimate was based on AVERAGE half life of bird DNA (Moa) that were dated with the same geological techniques that dinos are dated. The standard dating methods were authoritative as they are in all real science.
It is also noted that DNA half-life is going to be very dependent upon the environment the DNA is deposited in. Can you think of a better environment than a O2 free, bacteria free, dry, hermetically sealed chunk of fossil? Me neither.
At any rate it is clear (AGAIN) that you don't know anything about the real world application of science or the standards science has for how research and analysis of data is conducted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114545 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying dope.

You take lying dope? that explains a tremendous amount.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114546 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.

take your time. Make up something good. I will keep knocking them out of the park.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114547 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good questions. Tomorrow. On phone at bar now.
No problem - enjoy your Beer (even if it is American Lager)
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114548 Jan 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
take your time. Make up something good. I will keep knocking them out of the park.
Nah, when it comes to number progressions its a piece of American Beer (sorry could resist)

a) define your start point (or end point if you see what I mean)
b) define your formula (and back it up, based on numerous observed correlations)
c) define any assumptions made

And spit out an end point

And Bobs your Aunties live-in lover, you have a point
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114549 Jan 16, 2013
couldn't resist for Gods sake - I'm turning in, have an early meeting
Avanzado

United States

#114550 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Wikipedia is for brain dead morons, that believe anything they are told.
Whos IQ is higher than primitive human animals? Advanced Alien Beings. They wont even contact the humanoid..........the designers will not even acknowledge human existance.......They just made up a story and made the human animal believe.....end of story!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114551 Jan 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Space is not a vacuum.
Science claims space is a vacuum
Space is a partial vacuum.

Science claims that space is a partial vacuum.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114552 Jan 16, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Space is a partial vacuum.
Science claims that space is a partial vacuum.
Incidently, the 'partial' vacuum of space is the major cause of orbit degradation for near-orbit objects.

I think Jimmy may have even referenced this (by mistake, I'm sure).
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114553 Jan 16, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem - enjoy your Beer (even if it is American Lager)
Those are ok when hot and thirsty but prefer a west coast double hop India pale ale. Rich complex amber yet balanced. Ex. Sierra nevada pale ale or widmer bros. Drifter pale ale.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114554 Jan 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are ok when hot and thirsty but prefer a west coast double hop India pale ale. Rich complex amber yet balanced. Ex. Sierra nevada pale ale or widmer bros. Drifter pale ale.
A good 'daily' beer you can pick up is Yuengling Black & Tan.

Not bad, even IF it's a rip-off of the original (Guiness & Bass).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114555 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I was hoping you'd be the one person with a lick of sense but I was wrong. You can't calculate half-life like that because it is a logarithmic function. It is not linear. But even if it was you still did it wrong just like Dogen. Your calculation makes no sense at all. Use the formula I presented which is a standard half-life calculation.
Baloney. If after 521 years, half remains, then after another 521 years, a quarter remains, etc, then the amount remaining is always going to be 1/ 2^(number of halvings). I don't need your formula to see this, its obvious. And its NOT linear, it IS logarithmic. 1/2, 1/4 (1/2^2), 1/8 (1/2^3), 1/16 (1/2^4) etc.

In any case, we can agree that after 65 million years, there should be effectively no intact DNA in an original sequence of 2B base pairs, if the sample half life is truly 521 years.

The point you are missing, of course, is that your second article does NOT claim there is any intact DNA!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114556 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The formula is:
Qty Remains = Initial Quantity (1/2)^t/half-life
Here is an online half-life calculator for bird brains so you can check my work:
http://www.calculator.net/half-life-calculato...
My hand calculations were accurate!
Use 2000000000 for N/0, 10000 for t, and 521 for t1/2. The answer is correct!
Funnily enough, that is what I said, and you said I was doing it wrong. LOOK at what I wrote POST #114,506:
Chimney1 wrote:
65m/521 = 124,760 halvings (1/2^124,760)which would have long ago left less than "1 base" intact even in a sample the size of the earth!
DUH!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114557 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer did not report any remaining intact DNA.

Go back and reread your article. Then if you say it again, you are lying.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114558 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I used two different, independent peer-reviewed professional papers research results and appled them using real data which strongly supports a young earth creation. Based on the reported half-life of DNA of 521 years, the estimated beginning amount of Dino DNA of 2B base pairs and the amount of DNA remaining discovered and reported by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, I used the standard half-life formula to arrive at 10,000 years. Which is roughly about what I would expect. It seems you evos have a real problem on your hands.
Actually, lets clear this up. What do you think "intact DNA" as per the first article means? It means a strand of DNA with the original bases still in order, providing an intelligible sequence, for example of the kind that could lead you to distinguish a horse from a rat sample, right?

What happens as these bases break down? do they disappear? No, they just sit in a state of disarray. Broken, fragmented, perhaps recombining in random order, etc. The material is still there, right? Just the information (order)is lost.

Finding the chemicals that indicate DNA was present - i.e. useful, proper sequenced DNA, is not the same thing as finding DNA.

That is what Schweitzer found. That is all. More's the pity, because if DNA could really be preserved for longer, we might have had a shot at Jurassic Park.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 51,912
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min Regolith Based Li... 218,785
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 24,756
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Endofdays 157,534
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 20 hr scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... 20 hr scientia potentia... 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Thu Dogen 1,137
More from around the web