Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Dogen]

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.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

[Dogen]

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.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Lying dope.

You take lying dope? that explains a tremendous amount.

[Dogen]

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]

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]

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]

couldn't resist for Gods sake - I'm turning in, have an early meeting

[Avanzado]

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!

[Drew Smith]

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.

[Kong_]

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).

[Urban Cowboy]

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.

[Kong_]

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).

[Chimney1]

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!

[Chimney1]

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!

[Chimney1]

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.

[Chimney1]

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.

[ChristineM]

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.

First off please cite and give credit to these “peer reviewed professional papers”, we are not interested what you claim, we know that you lie, we want to see evidence…

Young earth??? so that’s where it all goes tits up, you are putting creationist pseudo data in to a scientific calculator and getting a skewed result, now I wonder why that is?

The 10,000 you use for ‘t’ is completely wrong, it should be at least 65,000,000. There is absolutely NO “evidence” E – V – I – D – E – N – C - E for dinosaurs being any younger than 65,000,000 years, ANYWHERE .

FOR THE LAST TIME Dr. Mary Schweitzer DID NOT FIND DNA

S – H – E __ D – I – D __ N – O – T __ F – I – N – D __D – N - A

Why do you find the FACTS so difficult to comprehend?

It was NOT DNA remainING but DNA remainS

If you start with a LIE then you end with a LIE.

May I suggest you forget your “claimed” peer reviewed papers and look at the paper that this is all about, the paper of Dr. Mary Schweitzer, here is a link to the abstract of “Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
and here is the FULL TEXT
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

However you may have difficulty understanding because it not full of lies…

What she found was the remain’S’– R – E – M – A – I - N –‘S’– of blood cells other soft tissue - NOT DNA.

There was not even any mention in her paper that she had found DNA, it is made up by young earth godsbots like you as a LIE to discredit fact.

What was actually said about DNA, not in the main paper but in the discussion starting on page 190 (not so important then eh) was :-

“It has been proposed that no original protein and/or DNA fragments can be recovered beyond ca 100kyr “

And

“Altered lipids that persist across millions of years may not be as informative as original proteins or DNA, but a mechanism resulting in their preservation and polymerization is worthy of investigation”

So the problem seems to be that you LIE, yes LIES always create a problem, particularly for the LIAR. If you are happy promoting lies then that’s up to your conscience. We know you find LYING so easy but please don’t expect your LIES to do your credibility any favours because we all know you lies and now take whatever you say with juts as much salt as is needed.