Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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
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

Kansas City, MO

#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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#114559 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.
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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#114560 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying dope.
Says the one who lies about published papers

Right?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114561 Jan 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hardcore.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114562 Jan 17, 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.
I am with those pale ales too. Used to be a great double hop one down in NZ called Emerson's. Over here, its all Heineken etc, not that I am complaining.
One way or another

United States

#114563 Jan 17, 2013
In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.

These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).

http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-dna-resea...

Science lies all the time.
One way or another

United States

#114564 Jan 17, 2013
Science lies all the time.

Space is not a vacuum.

Science claims space is a vacuum

New science by Jim Ryan

The speed of light test done in a vacuum over 20 miles is total BS, because man can achieve a totally closed and complete vacuum, while space cannot. It has trillions of tons of dust, if you believe in star nurseries, as science claims, coupled with billions of miles of gas clouds, trillions of tons of plasma, from the billions of suns and their ejections, trillions of tons of cosmic rays that all tend to divert and break up light, from as close as the moon, as science proves.

There is no vacuum in space, the kind that man can bring about on earth, ENTIRELY DEVOID of matter.

Trillions of tons of matter is all through out space, according to science.

How is it scientists are too stupid to understand that there is no vacuum in space?

vacuum[ vak-yoom,-yoo-uh&#8201;m,- yuh&#8201;m ]
noun
1. a space entirely devoid of matter.
2. an enclosed space from which matter, especially air, has been partially removed so that the matter or gas remaining in the space exerts less pressure than the atmosphere (plenum).
3. the state or degree of exhaustion in such an enclosed space.

To have star nurseries,--plural, as science claims and it takes dust beyond measure almost, to create a star, never mind many stars in many nurseries, as science claims, science contradicts itself terribly, while all scientist must be stupid or stoned, not to point it out to science as a whole.

The following is for all you idiot scientists and the morons that believe you. Read the last line carefully.

MISSING DARK MATTER LOCATED - INTER-GALACTIC SPACE IS FILLED WITH DARK MATTER

On many science web sites, science claims there is almost no matter in space. Science lies constantly

Researchers at IPMU and Nagoya University used large-scale computer simulations and recent observational data of gravitational lensing to reveal how dark matter is distributed around galaxies.

Galaxies have no definite "edges", the new research concludes. Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to their nearby galaxies; the inter-galactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.

http://www.ipmu.jp/node/1222

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#114565 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Chimney, you're really smar in a lot areas but sorry friend, math is not your strong suit. And the worst thing you could do is follow Dogen's nonsense. You might be able to "see it" but it's not a good idea to be in the habit of using math improperly. It would certainly not pass muster in a professional setting. You have to use the log base decay formula to get accurate results. We're already dealing with estimates, we could at least use the right formulas.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114566 Jan 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you're really smar in a lot areas but sorry friend, math is not your strong suit. And the worst thing you could do is follow Dogen's nonsense. You might be able to "see it" but it's not a good idea to be in the habit of using math improperly. It would certainly not pass muster in a professional setting. You have to use the log base decay formula to get accurate results. We're already dealing with estimates, we could at least use the right formulas.
You don't know who you are talking to, friend. But I will let it pass. What I gave you was exactly equivalent to what you yourself posted a few posts later.

In 65 million years there are 24,760 521 year halvings? Yes or no?

65m/521 = the number of halvings = 24,700.

You will find the answer is yes.

Furthermore, the amount remaining is 1/(2 to the power of number of halvings). Yes or no?

You will find the answer is yes.

You will also find that this IS a logarithmic sequence.

Meaning that the amount remaining = 1/2^24,760 which of course is a far smaller number than a single atom i.e. absolutely nothing of the orginal sequence will be left. In fact in an original sample as big as the whole damned Earth, nothing would be left. Such is the power of compounding exponential sequences.

You will find the answer is yes. I was right, and you either misread me or else its you who has the problem with simple maths.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Subduction Zone 143,155
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min NoahLovesU 14,766
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 5 hr Dogen 19
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 5 hr Dogen 8
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 14 hr ChromiuMan 966
Why natural selection can't work Fri shaun2000 29
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) Fri dirtclod 801
More from around the web