Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,579)

Showing posts 111,561 - 111,580 of171,381
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114559
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114563
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114564
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114565
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114567
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
In her own words:

"These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010 .

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114568
Jan 17, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
Science lies all the time.
Space is not a vacuum.
Science claims space is a vacuum
No, science discovers all the time.

For a long time, the vacuum of space was assumed to be devoid of anything apart from the odd dust particle and photons flying around.

Now it is theorised that dark energy and dark matter do populate empty space, but its still mostly devoid of ordinary matter.

The average density of matter in this universe is estimated at 2 hydrogen atoms per square meter. About one raindrop per volume of the whole earth! But since most matter is concentrated in stars etc, the actual density of matter in open space is WAAYYYY below that average figure.

If you were not constantly on your anti-everything tirade, you might find these things fascinating instead of threatening to you personally.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114569
Jan 17, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In her own words:
"These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”
Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010 .
OMG. Scientists have to be sooooo careful of how they word their statements with you guys around. Better to just ignore you as you are going to take everything out of context if at all possible!

Yes, she said it supports the presence of DNA. Not NOW, but showing that the samples were once living, and had DNA. Furthermore, even if what is left of the DNA is still present, its not intact DNA of the kind that the other researchers were referring to in their "half life" scenario. They did not claim the components of the DNA just disappear either, that would be magic. They claimed the intact DNA sequences break down, of course!

Please stop beating this dead horse. Neither you nor your creationist sources are going to set the world alight with your drunken misappraisals of everything that scientists say!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114570
Jan 17, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In her own words:
"These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”
Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010 .
And while we are at it, you are also ignoring the fact that the Moa studies with a 521 year half life are also, as has been pointed out, dependent on the conditions of preservation. Half life of a chemical preservation is not fixed the way radioactive decay is fixed. Its conceivable that many factors will alter the rate of preservation and decay of any soft tissue or its components.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114571
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The morons like chimney don't understand the difference between one raindrop to the size of earth, speaking to the amount of matter in space, versus what science says in the following.---MISSING DARK MATTER LOCATED - INTER-GALACTIC SPACE IS FILLED WITH DARK MATTER

See that word,"filled"? Well, morons always seem to miss the important things.

Science lies through its teeth. Science refuses to do a real scientific test, where it sends a probe a million miles from earth and it sends light beams to 3 countries on earth, to actually verify the speed of light theory in space.

Science lies constantly.

Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114572
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And while we are at it, you are also ignoring the fact that the Moa studies with a 521 year half life are also, as has been pointed out, dependent on the conditions of preservation. Half life of a chemical preservation is not fixed the way radioactive decay is fixed. Its conceivable that many factors will alter the rate of preservation and decay of any soft tissue or its components.
Agree that is under ideal conditions so naturally half-life would be something less than 521 years.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114573
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Circular logic nonsense. Use the damn formula.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 111,561 - 111,580 of171,381
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••