Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,193

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

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114690 Jan 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you go with birds and reptile DNA (remember, I am asking a creationist)?
As I recall, your est. was 3B bp.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114691 Jan 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We are saying you did not understand what she said, in context.
I thought she made herself quite clear. But just out of curiosity, what is your understanding of what she said?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114692 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can blabber all you want but you still did it wrong. Stop making excuses and learn to use the big boy formulas. It's not that difficult. If you simply divide time into smaller portions all you wind up with is equal parts of the whole. Half life doesn't work like that. Grow a set.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114693 Jan 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Must you always prove you are a moron.
Radio waves can travel through walls.
Go back to kindergarten .
You are so funny, you idiot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114694 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can blabber all you want but you still did it wrong. Stop making excuses and learn to use the big boy formulas. It's not that difficult. If you simply divide time into smaller portions all you wind up with is equal parts of the whole. Half life doesn't work like that. Grow a set.
No, I did it right. Pity you cannot see that. Just shows you are a rote learner.
How many halvings over 65m years? 124,700 if halving every 521 years.
So how much material left? 1/2^124,760. In other words nothing, even if the sample size was massive.
Don't even comprehend how you can maintain your silliness on this, but doubly amused that my conclusion agrees with you that if the half life is 521 years, there could not be any intact DNA after 65 million.
So why are you being an idiot?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114695 Jan 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The starting point is the genome size of T-rex which I est. at 2B bp. Seems reasonable. Birds and reptiles range around 1B to 3B bps. Sorry, but nobody to my knowledge has ever sequenced a dino DNA last time I checked. Maybe you have another suggestion?
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.

“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!

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) 5 min Chimney1 141,622
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Thinking 14,397
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr Brian_G 768
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 4 hr NoahLovesU 3
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 4 hr NoahLovesU 1,954
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory Jan 21 jogos friv 2 10
More from around the web