Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114737 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.
The exponent was there from my first post! Don't you understand the following terminology?

2^3 MEANS "two raised the the third power".

You do know what "to the power of" means right? As in "ten to the power of three = a thousand?

They are all exponential expressions.

If you check my original post #114,506

“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!”

That means one over (2 to the power of 124,760).

That’s an exponent.

Your apology is accepted in advance.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114738 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Lenski study and many others show that creatures adapt with their built-in genetic diversity which allows for rapid adaptation to new environments followed by stasis. A created kind does not ever become some different type of creature, but makes slight changes to adapt to the new environment.
False. All Lenski samples were originally taken from a single bacterium, not a diverse population.

All genetic novelty was therefore a result of mutations from the original mono-clonal sample. New change, not selection from existing diversity.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114739 Jan 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wrong again. The samples gradually adapted and populations rose slowly, generation after generation, wut with a levelling off.

The in one flask, the population exploded. This was found to be a result of the new ability to digest citrate and thus increase the available food. It was also found to be the result of two mutations, one occurring thousands of generations before the other with no apparent effect until the second one occurred. Thus what looked like a merely neutral mutation turned out to be a beneficial one.

Furthermore, your general point that such mutations are always a loss of fitness compared to the wild variaties - for example the development of antibiotic resistance - has also been proven false.

While it does often occur, about 20% of cases of improved antibiotic resistant bacteria are found to be fitter even in the absence of the antibiotic and in the wild populations, rapidly taking over (classic "superbugs").

More nails in the coffin for you and your misguided pal Sanford.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114740 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. 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.
Actually, I have more to say about this.

My original, CORRECT calculation, WITH an exponential decline curve as expected by a half life calculation, used 65 million years to demonstrate, IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, that no DNA should be intact if the sample was, in fact, 65m years old and if the 521 year half life is a generally reliable indicator. You are so combative that you do not even know when someone is agreeing with you.

Now, does the theory of evolution REQUIRE all dinosaur DNA to be 65 million years old? Nope. It would not even violate evolution if some living dinosaurs were found hidden deep in the Congo or something. Very unlikely in practice, but not a violation of the theory. The theory says creatures cannot appear BEFORE their possible antecedents. It does not give any creature or class a theoretical required expiry date.

The reason we are skeptical that there have been any dinosaurs for 65 million years is practical, not theoretical. Not a single trace of any dino has been found since the KT boundary, and multiple dating methods put that at 65mya. By now, its unlikely to happen.

IN any case you are still ignoring the facts raised right from the start. ONE - Schweitzer has NOT found intact DNA, merely evidence that DNA was present. TWO - the 521 year half life is not a fixed phenomenon like the half life of Uranium 235. It was merely an estimate of half life for a sample preserved under similar conditions to a sample of Moa DNA found in NZ, as as we all know this could vary significantly depending on preservation conditions.

Why you fail to address these points but simply keep harping on your original claims is something only creationists can answer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114741 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Early quote from Dr. Mary Schweitzer on her finding:
"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician:“The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
-Schweitzer, M.H., Montana State University Museum of the Rockies; cited on p. 160 of Morell, V., Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 July 1993
What she should say:
This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine.
Furthermore, we just stop refusing to perform Carbon-14 dating analysis simply for ideological reasons and see just how old this dinosaur really is.

YOU IDIOT!!!!!

No one does C-14 on dinosaur bones!!!!!!!!!!

What she DOES say "we have a mechanism for this occurring over geologic time scale". You manage to read only what you want to read, even if it is only 1% of the article.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#114742 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
.
Furthermore, we just stop refusing to perform Carbon-14 dating analysis simply for ideological reasons and see just how old this dinosaur really is.
Ironically the reason why C-14 isn't used is due to its short (relatively) half-life - but anyone with a passing knowledge knows this (and I am presuming the good doctor has at least learnt the basics).

However it does raise and interesting question:-

You always dismiss radiometric dating methods as inaccurate due to relying on assumptions , shown to be wrong (RATE ? See above) etc

But you use your Dino DNA half-life argument even though it arguably has more assumptions, including the assumption that any ACTUAL DNA was found, but also that degradation rates are constant (we know they are very dependent on environment)

So how come you dismiss radiometric dating which contradicts young earth, but accept Dino DNA half-life's which (supposedly) support it.?

Maybe it's you that are (again) applying double-standards for ideological reasons.

Just a thought

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114743 Jan 20, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically the reason why C-14 isn't used is due to its short (relatively) half-life - but anyone with a passing knowledge knows this (and I am presuming the good doctor has at least learnt the basics).
However it does raise and interesting question:-
You always dismiss radiometric dating methods as inaccurate due to relying on assumptions , shown to be wrong (RATE ? See above) etc
But you use your Dino DNA half-life argument even though it arguably has more assumptions, including the assumption that any ACTUAL DNA was found, but also that degradation rates are constant (we know they are very dependent on environment)
So how come you dismiss radiometric dating which contradicts young earth, but accept Dino DNA half-life's which (supposedly) support it.?
Maybe it's you that are (again) applying double-standards for ideological reasons.
Just a thought
She did find some DNA. I don't know how much but would certainly like to know how many base pairs are counted in the double helix she found in the nucleus of the bone cell. The article abstract indicates this. Several news stories about it indicates this. We will have to wait until the article is published in print to read it in the library. I do not dismiss radiometric dating. Science accepts the indicated age of C-14. Why can't you accept c-14 dating analysis of Mary's dino cells? What are you afraid of? Maybe this dino survived longer. What if we even find a living dino one day? Do you really think that matters? It wouldn't change anything. Remember, this is your ideology we are talking about.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114744 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Actually, I have more to say about this.
My original, CORRECT calculation, WITH an exponential decline curve as expected by a half life calculation, used 65 million years to demonstrate, IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, that no DNA should be intact if the sample was, in fact, 65m years old and if the 521 year half life is a generally reliable indicator.
Sorry, dividing up 65M in 521 equal parts which has absolutely no informational value at all and the 65M is not even a valid data value in this case. It is technically in total error. All you did was manipulate arbitrary numbers to arrive at a very small value. It was nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114745 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The samples gradually adapted and populations rose slowly, generation after generation, wut with a levelling off.
The in one flask, the population exploded. This was found to be a result of the new ability to digest citrate and thus increase the available food. It was also found to be the result of two mutations, one occurring thousands of generations before the other with no apparent effect until the second one occurred. Thus what looked like a merely neutral mutation turned out to be a beneficial one.
Furthermore, your general point that such mutations are always a loss of fitness compared to the wild variaties - for example the development of antibiotic resistance - has also been proven false.
While it does often occur, about 20% of cases of improved antibiotic resistant bacteria are found to be fitter even in the absence of the antibiotic and in the wild populations, rapidly taking over (classic "superbugs").
More nails in the coffin for you and your misguided pal Sanford.
And after 50,000 generations, all of them are still (albeit less fit) E.coli. More nails in the coffin for you and macroevolution.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114746 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Now, does the theory of evolution REQUIRE all dinosaur DNA to be 65 million years old? Nope. It would not even violate evolution if some living dinosaurs were found hidden deep in the Congo or something. Very unlikely in practice, but not a violation of the theory. The theory says creatures cannot appear BEFORE their possible antecedents. It does not give any creature or class a theoretical required expiry date.
I've already considered this. You are right. Accepting the reality of young or even live dinos wouldn't change a thing. The theory is so plastic that anything goes.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#114747 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
ONE - Schweitzer has NOT found intact DNA, merely evidence that DNA was present.
She found soft tissue, blood tissue, bone cells, and DNA right where it is supposed to be, in the nucleous of the dino bone cells. Deal with it. Peer reviewed research from an evolutionist. And the half life of DNA also by peer reviewed research from an evolutionist. Given enough rope, you hang your own necks.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#114748 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She did find some DNA. I don't know how much but would certainly like to know how many base pairs are counted in the double helix she found in the nucleus of the bone cell. The article abstract indicates this. Several news stories about it indicates this. We will have to wait until the article is published in print to read it in the library. I do not dismiss radiometric dating. Science accepts the indicated age of C-14. Why can't you accept c-14 dating analysis of Mary's dino cells? What are you afraid of? Maybe this dino survived longer. What if we even find a living dino one day? Do you really think that matters? It wouldn't change anything. Remember, this is your ideology we are talking about.
You seem to have avoided addressing the point I was making (I suspect willfully)

I was asking why you dismiss radiometric dating as flawed except C14 that 'fits' into your 10k old earth.

But accept 'Dino DNA dating'.

This seems to simply be what you accuse schweitzer of, I.e. discarding evidence for ideological reasons.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114749 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, dividing up 65M in 521 equal parts which has absolutely no informational value at all and the 65M is not even a valid data value in this case. It is technically in total error. All you did was manipulate arbitrary numbers to arrive at a very small value. It was nonsense.
Dingbat, R E A D S L O W L Y....

The reason to divide 65m by 521 is to find the minimum number of HALVINGS *IF THE SAMPLE REALLY IS* 65 million years old as conventional scientists would demand. Hence 24,700 HALVINGS, HENCE 1/2^24,700, hence if there is any intact DNA present, then the sample should be LESS THAN 65 million years old.

If you were not idiotically jumping to conclusions, you would see that by this route I was AGREEING WITH YOU that there could not possibly be any intact DNA after this many halvings IF the sample WAS 65 million years old (and if the 521 half life is accurate.

There was NOTHING arbitrary about the numbers or the method I used! It was YOUR half life figure, applied to the currently believed minimum age of the dinosaurs.

I was agreeing with you Muddle Head, using the correct logic of half lives, and you still cannot see it.

In other words, you appear to be one more inexorable step closer to Jimbodom.

Sheesh!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114750 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She found soft tissue, blood tissue, bone cells, and DNA right where it is supposed to be, in the nucleous of the dino bone cells. Deal with it. Peer reviewed research from an evolutionist. And the half life of DNA also by peer reviewed research from an evolutionist. Given enough rope, you hang your own necks.
No, she found evidence of remnants of DNA.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#114751 Jan 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU IDIOT!!!!!
No one does C-14 on dinosaur bones!!!!!!!!!!
What she DOES say "we have a mechanism for this occurring over geologic time scale". You manage to read only what you want to read, even if it is only 1% of the article.
Well perhaps they should, and put this nonsense to rest.

Prediction? The C-14 levels should be reduced to background levels proving the sample is more than 100,000 years old. As we all know, you cannot calibrate C-14 to give a higher result than that, BUT its enough to falsify any "5,000 year old dino" nonsense emanating from the likes of UC.

Frankly I wish they would just do the test!

How interesting...if it was NOT found to be 100K +!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114752 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She did find some DNA. I don't know how much but would certainly like to know how many base pairs are counted in the double helix she found in the nucleus of the bone cell. The article abstract indicates this. Several news stories about it indicates this. We will have to wait until the article is published in print to read it in the library. I do not dismiss radiometric dating. Science accepts the indicated age of C-14. Why can't you accept c-14 dating analysis of Mary's dino cells? What are you afraid of?

C-14 was not used. C-14 is never used in dating dinosaur fossils. C-14 is meaningless in dating artifacts over 100k years old (with 60k being a more practical level with a normal sample size). When C-14 HAS been used the results are that no significant amount of C-14 is present and therefore the sample is over 60k years old. Period. If you were not so scientifically ignorant you would know this very simple fact.

Now for your quiz. List 10 methods that are used for dating dinosaur remains. I am not asking you to list ALL of the dating methods, nor even all of the dating methods that are in use. Just list 10 that are used on dinosaur remains.

She may not have reported # of base pairs because there were not enough to measure. Certainly there were not enough to sequence.
You are still mythunderstanding because you don't understand enough actual science.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Maybe this dino survived longer. What if we even find a living dino one day? Do you really think that matters? It wouldn't change anything. Remember, this is your ideology we are talking about.

There is zero evidence of any dinosaurs living much beyond 65 million years ago. We will not find any living land based dinosaurs. Period. The best chance is to find something related to ichthyosaurs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114753 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, dividing up 65M in 521 equal parts which has absolutely no informational value at all and the 65M is not even a valid data value in this case. It is technically in total error. All you did was manipulate arbitrary numbers to arrive at a very small value. It was nonsense.

Clearly you do not understand how your own precious formula was derived. Your ignorance of how math works is nearly equal to your ignorance of how science actually works.

Science neither begins nor ends with math. That is a tool used to get from point A to point B. You need to understand how the formula is derived, what it means and how it works. That is correct understanding.

65 Million is the accepted value and has multiple lines of evidence. There is no information that conflicts with this figure.

Please read about how fossils and artifices are dated using ACTUAL science.

Again, you try to put up a fake science front, but you tear down that front from inside with your gaffs of basic science (C-14 being the most recent, but hardly the worst, example).
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114754 Jan 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The samples gradually adapted and populations rose slowly, generation after generation, wut with a levelling off.
The in one flask, the population exploded. This was found to be a result of the new ability to digest citrate and thus increase the available food. It was also found to be the result of two mutations, one occurring thousands of generations before the other with no apparent effect until the second one occurred. Thus what looked like a merely neutral mutation turned out to be a beneficial one.
Furthermore, your general point that such mutations are always a loss of fitness compared to the wild variaties - for example the development of antibiotic resistance - has also been proven false.
While it does often occur, about 20% of cases of improved antibiotic resistant bacteria are found to be fitter even in the absence of the antibiotic and in the wild populations, rapidly taking over (classic "superbugs").
More nails in the coffin for you and your misguided pal Sanford.
Your deceit never stops. You're a child that lies constantly, just to get attention. If I'm wrong, then it should be easy for you to show in the experiment, where the citrus came from and then prove an explosion of population occurred from the citrus.

You can't moron, because you operate on so much pure deceit.

Go lie to children, idiot.
LowellGuy

United States

#114755 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
She did find some DNA. I don't know how much but would certainly like to know how many base pairs are counted in the double helix she found in the nucleus of the bone cell. The article abstract indicates this. Several news stories about it indicates this. We will have to wait until the article is published in print to read it in the library. I do not dismiss radiometric dating. Science accepts the indicated age of C-14. Why can't you accept c-14 dating analysis of Mary's dino cells? What are you afraid of? Maybe this dino survived longer. What if we even find a living dino one day? Do you really think that matters? It wouldn't change anything. Remember, this is your ideology we are talking about.
There would be evidence of dinosaurs of that size, or any size, had they lived until less than 60,000 years ago. 65,000,000 years between evidence dates is outrageously unlikely. It's almost as likely as a creationist accurately and honestly explaining how and why science works.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#114756 Jan 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And after 50,000 generations, all of them are still (albeit less fit) E.coli. More nails in the coffin for you and macroevolution.

LOL. They evolved EXACTLY like the evolutionary model predicts. Rapidly when there is a change in environment and slowly when it remains constant.

And you expect bacteria to become a space traveling dolphin in 20 years. No wonder we mock you. You demand to be mocked for your ignorance.

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) 3 min DanFromSmithville 164,311
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 2 hr goonsquad 162
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr thetruth 19,061
How can we prove God exists, or does not? May 26 Gillette 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) May 26 DanFromSmithville 141,352
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
More from around the web