Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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: 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...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114716 Jan 18, 2013
"The discovery of soft, transparent microstructures in dinosaur bone consistent in morphology with osteocytes was controversial. We hypothesize that, if original, these microstructures will have molecular features in common with extant osteocytes. We present immunological and mass spectrometry evidence for preservation of proteins comprising extant osteocytes (Actin, Tubulin, PHEX, Histone H4) in osteocytes recovered from two non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4&#8242;,6&#8242;-diam idino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. We propose mechanisms for preservation of cells and component molecules, and discuss implications for dinosaurian cellular biology.

Highlights
&#9658; Multiple lines of evidence support endogeneity of osteocyte-like microstructures in two dinosaurs. &#9658; We show the first binding of bone-specific monoclonal antibody to ‘cells’ of these dinosaurs. &#9658; Four independent lines of evidence support the presence of a component chemically consistent with DNA. &#9658; We propose a novel mechanism for the preservation of these materials over geological time.
"

http://www.thebonejournal.com/article/S8756-3... (12)01318-X/abstract

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Simpsonville, SC

#114717 Jan 18, 2013
"However, they still contained what appear to be the proteins you would expect to find in living osteocytes, as well as at least some remnants of DNA. That’s the amazing part of their results. These bones are supposed to be more than 65 million years old, yet they hold fossilized remains of cells that still contain their proteins and some DNA."

http://blog.drwile.com/...

How much? How much?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114718 Jan 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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
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!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114719 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"The discovery of soft, transparent microstructures in dinosaur bone consistent in morphology with osteocytes was controversial. We hypothesize that, if original, these microstructures will have molecular features in common with extant osteocytes. We present immunological and mass spectrometry evidence for preservation of proteins comprising extant osteocytes (Actin, Tubulin, PHEX, Histone H4) in osteocytes recovered from two non-avian dinosaurs. Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4&#8242;,6&#8242;-diam idino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. We propose mechanisms for preservation of cells and component molecules, and discuss implications for dinosaurian cellular biology.
Highlights
&#9658; Multiple lines of evidence support endogeneity of osteocyte-like microstructures in two dinosaurs. &#9658; We show the first binding of bone-specific monoclonal antibody to ‘cells’ of these dinosaurs. &#9658; Four independent lines of evidence support the presence of a component chemically consistent with DNA. &#9658; We propose a novel mechanism for the preservation of these materials over geological time.
"
http://www.thebonejournal.com/article/S8756-3... (12)01318-X/abstract
Do you think you're making a point here?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#114720 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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?
To echo an earlier post, isn't it interesting that when it suits your purposes, half-lives are valid scientifically, but when it DOESN'T suit your purposes, half-lives are invalid scientifically?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114721 Jan 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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
&$@@(&?<arrogant$*@ ?/brit.

;)

Seriously, I will try to give it a look.

Of course House is a "Sherlock" character in a medical setting. The only problem it the title character is yet another Brit!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114722 Jan 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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

Absent a lit review your claim is meaningless.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114723 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

No he doesn't. Why? Because he understands the concept and can apply it.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> 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?

It IS a given that it is 65 million years old. We know that the same way we know the age of the DNA that was measured in the "half-life" study.

Second, and perhaps I should have lead with this, is that you DON'T want to know the real answer. You want to make the answer conform to your theology. If not you would be quoting the tens of thousands of studies that show the earth is billions of years old. But you aren't, you are quoting the ONE that you can WARP into maybe conforming to your a priori assumptions.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

No, she has remnants of what used to be DNA and THAT is peer reviewed research.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Then you are solving for something only using estimates. You can prove ANYTHING that way. Look at the Drake equation. Do you want to be the only life in the universe? I can manipulate the variables to get that answer if I like.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> 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".

No. 65 million years is established by countless dating methods that are known to be reliable. That it is a fact has nothing to do with evolution. AND you are proceeding from a false assumption. You are ASSUMING the earth is only 10,000 years old. If true, all the other facts that have been discovered are still true. The only difference would be is that we could not (yet) explain how life evolved so rapidly in that time frame.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> (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.

The rest is just projection and needs no response. You need to learn about how science world. Starting with an answer and working backward to find variables that fit is not the answer.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Lithonia, GA

#114724 Jan 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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
Lenski grew twelve different cultures in various liquid media designed to provoke selection and thus, some evolution. But after 20 years and some 50,000 generations, nothing. Actually, the opposite happened. The E.coli adapted soon and quickly acheived stasis or steady fitness. After sequencing the dna at intervals of 2000, 5000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 and 40,000 etc. Over time, however, fitness declined to the point where he stopped reporting on fitness at the halfway point in his research because the data did not favor the evolutionary model and thus embarassing but strongly favoring the creation model.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114725 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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?

How many times will you make this same error?

The soft tissue was dehydrated and in hermetically sealed environment. Based on that it could last forever!

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
Science News (Sep '13) 3 min Hatti_Hollerand 2,946
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min DanFromSmithville 134,243
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 13,630
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 12 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 14 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web