Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178619 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.

“Cleaning Up Christianity ”

Level 5

Since: Jan 13

Topix Badlands

#114696 Jan 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is simple for all minds, should be simple for the simple minded. That does not appear to be the case. Do you have evidence to support your claims of there being a god, specifically your god?
Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. And why should you care? I don't care about where you wish spend eternity. Should I?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114697 Jan 18, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove me wrong? Of course not. And why should you care? I don't care about where you wish spend eternity. Should I?
I expect she will spend eternity dead, as you will. You don't think your little fairy tales are going to preserve you from real death, do you?

Shit, another coward.

“Cleaning Up Christianity ”

Level 5

Since: Jan 13

Topix Badlands

#114698 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I expect she will spend eternity dead, as you will. You don't think your little fairy tales are going to preserve you from real death, do you?
Shit, another coward.
Why do you care what I think? I don't tell you what to think. God only knows somebody should though. ROTFLOL

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Martin, GA

#114699 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, idiot. It would not matter if you started with 2B or 200B or 2000B, if the half life is 521 years there will be no intact DNA sequence after 65 million years. 1/2^124,7000 is less than 1 / every particle in the universe.
But never mind. Even when my (correctly calculated) conclusion agrees with your rote learning of formulas without comprehension, you still beg to differ.
Poor you.
Wha..whaaa...cry like a baby. Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114700 Jan 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The silly children are always having to make excuses and be deceitful, because they run their mouths before actually understanding.
They degrade every site they are on.

Translation: you got refuted again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114701 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
As I recall, your est. was 3B bp.

I would call it more of a guesstimate than an estimate.

The number of base pairs is, again, not really the issue.

The real issue is that DNA does not seem to have a set decay rate but is dependent upon the environment it is in. The "half-life" of DNA is an average based on one set of circumstances

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114702 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text

Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!
Sorry Urb, but anyone inspecting my maths would agree that in this very simple case, there is no dispute. I am right. Given a sample halving every x years, the remainder of the sample will be 1/2^(halvings), and number of halvings will be (total years / x)

Dingbat. Its simpleness. Embarassed for you if you cannot see it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114703 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought she made herself quite clear. But just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of what she said?

Essentially that fragments of what had once been DNA still existed after over 65 million years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114704 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wha..whaaa...cry like a baby. Your math is wrong and is total nonsense. You refuse to use the proper formula. You insist on denying reality due to your ideology. Wha..waaa. Idiot cry baby!

LOL. You are a complete retard.

Science requires comprehension.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114705 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Urb, but anyone inspecting my maths would agree that in this very simple case, there is no dispute. I am right. Given a sample halving every x years, the remainder of the sample will be 1/2^(halvings), and number of halvings will be (total years / x)
Dingbat. Its simpleness. Embarassed for you if you cannot see it.

He always denies being wrong, even when it is to his disadvantage. He said you were wrong so he has to maintain that no matter that you are right AND are agreeing with him.

Crazy

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114706 Jan 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He always denies being wrong, even when it is to his disadvantage. He said you were wrong so he has to maintain that no matter that you are right AND are agreeing with him.
Crazy
Yep. This one amazes me, really.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114707 Jan 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Essentially that fragments of what had once been DNA still existed after over 65 million years.
It's the point I have been unsuccessfully pushing, UCs whole half-life argument rests on the amount of 'DNA' remaining in B. Rex and unless I am mistaken seems to be a misrepresentation (understandable as the common media did it as well) of what Schweitzer's paper said.

I guess another point would be if (nasty athesist) scientists HAD found actual DNA , would we know more about it , for instance the sequence of the (admittedly small) sample.

But as far as I can see nothing - so as I say the HL argument for 10k old earth fails at the first hurdle.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114708 Jan 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Yes, lets give credit where credit is due. I have not seen the newer BBC version. I will have to give them a look.
Just to clarify - elementary was some 2 years AFTER our brilliant re-imagining of the Conan Doyle masterpiece.

So you cut 'n' pasted it Moron :-)

Seriously - check it out if you can get it - is really well done and if you read the originals you would appreciate it

But in the spirit of goodwill - thanks for family guy

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114709 Jan 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If science weren't afraid, it would have installed a laser on its probe and when it was a million miles from home, it could fire its laser and show the world.
Science doesn't want the proof, because it won't work and they know it.
Yes, if only they would ask a mentally unstable carpet layer with a 10th grade education how they should do their jobs, we could get some REAL science done!
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114710 Jan 18, 2013
Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reversed the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistantt bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.


True

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114711 Jan 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop wallowing in your foolishness.
A repeated halving follows the pattern of 1 / 2 (to the power of number of halvings).
Get over it, idiot. Its what I said, its what is true by any logic, and its bloody basic. Now STFU and get on with it.
Chimney, why do you insist on being so stupid? I noticed you finally snuck in an exponent. Good. That's a little progress but still very wrong. You really need to use the standard half-life formula. What we want to know here is given the half-life, the initial amount of dna and the remaining amount of dna, how much time has elapsed. NOT given it's 65M years old, how much dna is left? No, no, no! That's not right. You are being totally childish and dishonest.(And stupid as hell!) Face reality. M. Schweitzer does have some dino dna and the half-life of 521 years is peer-reviewed research. We can estimate the original amount of dino dna based on the genomes of similar living animals. 65 million is NOT part of the equation. We have the data values from real, published research papers. We have the dna. we have the 521 year half-life. We have a reasonable estimate of the original amount of dna. But We Do Not Have How Old It Is. It's not 65 million years. That is just all in your mind you fool. It is just you being a voodoo darwin zombee. "Must be 65 million years because that's is required by the theory".(Eyes closed-arms outstretched, walking and spoken like a zombee monster of course.) Boy Chimney, certain things (like threats to your ideology) push your buttons and make you just go wackadoodle. As if you go insane. I hope it's not permanent.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114712 Jan 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the point I have been unsuccessfully pushing, UCs whole half-life argument rests on the amount of 'DNA' remaining in B. Rex and unless I am mistaken seems to be a misrepresentation (understandable as the common media did it as well) of what Schweitzer's paper said.
I guess another point would be if (nasty athesist) scientists HAD found actual DNA , would we know more about it , for instance the sequence of the (admittedly small) sample.
But as far as I can see nothing - so as I say the HL argument for 10k old earth fails at the first hurdle.


Sorry I you can't get answers the instant you demand it. And thanks for not going completely stark-raving mad as some others have. I understand this is very controversial. Obviously I am encouraged by this and you are going to be highly skeptical. If one was a devout evolutionist you might ask, how is it that we could have soft tissue and even some dna from a dinosaur? Afterall they should have been all gone 65 million years ago. But on the other hand, a young earth creationist would be accepting and inviting of such discoveries as we believe the earth is only 10,000 years old. So anyway, let's respect each other's world-views and keep cool heads. It seems you are OK with the half-life of 521 years for dna. Afterall it's published, scientific peer-reviewed and all that. OK good. And I think you are OK with a reasonable estimate of the original amount of dino dna (when it was alive) at 2 billion base pairs.(Feel free to provide your own if you think it matters.) Now what you are challenging is that Schweitzer found dna at all or the amount she found? A couple of problems. We don't have the full article because we would have to pay for it. But we do have the abstract and the summery and we do have several reviews and popular articles about it. Agreed so far. OK. Then let's say we come to the point where we agree she has x base pairs. There is a standard half-life calculator found on the web at Calculator.net that we can both use to verify results. Agreed? We then would have everthing we need. 1. The initial amount, 2. The half-life time, and 3. The remaing amount. We solve the formula for the time elapsed. Agreed?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114713 Jan 18, 2013
"A US researcher is claiming to have found further evidence that ancient dinosaur proteins - and even DNA - may have been preserved until the present day."

"This, she says, strongly suggests that the DNA is original, although without sequence data it can't be confirmed as dinosaurian."

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-featu...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114714 Jan 18, 2013
Another question is, what about the dino soft tissue and it's half-life? Since the dino soft tissue is not in dispute, perhaps the same procedure can be applied to soft tissue. Original amount-remaining amount-half life, etc. How to define orginal amount. Do animal cells decay similarly?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114715 Jan 18, 2013
"Schweitzer and her team also tested for the presence of DNA within the cellular structures, using an antibody that only binds to the "backbone" of DNA. The antibody reacted to small amounts of material within the "cells" of both the T. rex and the B. canadensis. To rule out the presence of microbes, they used an antibody that binds histone proteins, which bind tightly to the DNA of everything except microbes, and got another positive result. They then ran two other histochemical stains which fluoresce when they attach to DNA molecules. Those tests were also positive. These data strongly suggest that the DNA is original, but without sequence data, it is impossible to confirm that the DNA is dinosaurian."

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-dinosau...

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 25 min MikeF 164,714
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 2 hr lozzza 106
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr lozzza 19,142
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr dirtclod 141,472
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? Sun Zog Has-fallen 28
Christian Theology and the Natural Sciences are... Sat Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web