Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,816

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
One way or another

United States

#116752 Feb 11, 2013
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.

* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116753 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, creation is well observed
...but I take your point
<quoted text>
I think it is..
Not actually creating, but being able to test 'various kinds' reproducing as Genesis states God had ordained
<quoted text>
Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism
And that is exactly what is observed
<quoted text>
Here you are right
But neither is evolution
The equivocation used by evolutionists
For example, your high priest Dawkins..
"...when there is systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution".
Similar definitions include 'evolution = "change in gene freqeuncy with time"
Or "descent with modification"
An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the "pretentiously" named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to pushing evolution....
...cited a teacher approvingly whose student after being told the definition of evolution, said, "Of course species change with time! You mean that's evolution?"
That's a caricature of evolution
Things changing...
Of course they change...
We could all be evolutionists if that's all it takes..
We could pack up and go home
How do you falsify that definition?
You can't
What is evolution?(Kerkut)
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.
On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
-—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).
With the starting premise of magic poofing, all science would be irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116754 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
There was no DNA.
Yes, clearly there is.
The Dude wrote:
Um, no. In fact that's quite the opposite to what I was saying.
Dodge-A-Rama!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116755 Feb 11, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
With the starting premise of magic poofing, all science would be irrelevant.
With the starting premise of "nothing + nobody = everything", all science would be irrelevant.
One way or another

United States

#116756 Feb 11, 2013
Something else then?

Her lab was still stacked with unpacked cartons when she opened the cardboard box from the T. rex dig and pulled out the biggest fragment. Looking at it with the eyes of a biologist, she immediately saw it was more than a fossil. Time and history began to unwind. "Oh, my gosh," she said to her laboratory assistant, Jennifer Wittmeyer. "It's a girl. And it's pregnant."
What Schweitzer saw was medullary bone, a type of tissue that grows inside the long bones of female birds. Medullary bone is produced during ovulation as a way of storing the calcium needed for egg production; then it disappears. "I looked at it under the dissecting scope," Schweitzer says. "There was nothing else it could be." The medullary bone even contained gaps and mazelike fiber patterns resembling those of modern birds.
Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. "Everything we've ever tried to do has been an utter guess," Schweitzer says. For instance, researchers had tried to distinguish a male from a female based on the shape of a creature's body or the size of its head crest. Now they had a way to link gender with morphology and, drawing on parallels with living animals, even with behavior.
The second surprise hit in January 2004. While Schweitzer was attending a departmental taco party, Wittmeyer raced breathlessly into the room. "You aren't going to believe what happened," the lab assistant sputtered.
Wittmeyer had been pulling the late shift, analyzing pieces from the T. rex limb. She had just soaked a fragment of medullary bone in dilute acid to remove some calcium phosphate. This was an unusual procedure to carry out in a dinosaur lab. Scientists typically assume that a fossilized dinosaur consists of rock that would entirely dissolve in acid, but Schweitzer wanted to get a closer look at the fossil's fine structure and compare it with that of modern birds. That night Wittmeyer marveled at a small section of decalcified thighbone: "When you wiggled it, it kind of floated in the breeze."
Schweitzer and Wittmeyer pondered the meaning of the stretchy sample, feeling mystified and ecstatic. The remains seemed like soft tissue—specifically matrix, the organic part of bone, which consists primarily of collagen. Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade," Schweitzer says. "If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?"
Next Schweitzer examined a piece of the dinosaur's cortical bone. "We stuck the bone in the same kind of solution," she says. "The bone mineral dissolved away, and it left these transparent blood vessels. I took one look, and I just said:'Uh-uh. This isn't happening. This is just not happening.' " She started applying the same treatment to bone fragments from another dinosaur that she had acquired for her dissertation. "Sure enough," she says, "vessels all over the place."
Less than a month later, while Schweitzer was still collecting data on the soft tissue, came a third score. Wittmeyer walked into the lab looking anxious. "I think maybe some of our stuff's gotten contaminated, because I see these things floating around, and they look like bugs," she said. Worried that she would lose her dinosaur blood vessels before she could publish an article about them, Schweitzer rushed to rescue the sample. What she found startled her. Through the microscope she could see what looked like perfectly formed osteocytes, the cells inside bone.
The past was roaring to life.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116757 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.
* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
That's like saying "Mr. Smith is the director of aeronautics at the "Lead Blimp Association".

ICR is a joke.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116758 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.
* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.

Sorry you are uninterested in the true. The is not a peer review journal. It is just a creationist rag. You may notice, however, that it is an opinion piece and filled with logical fallacies and misinformation. No actual research was done (as is typical of creationists).
One way or another

United States

#116759 Feb 11, 2013
Intimidation by science, you pieces of shit, you strangle real science so you can get the brainwashed students to throw off religions power. You hate sharing power and when you have all the power, you will pronounce yourselves gods.
History proves such.

If Schweitzer had not gotten funding, she might not have a job.

Fear caused the mind to stop seeking answers

Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA.

2nd page---http://discovermagazine .com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UR ky8be9Kc0
One way or another

United States

#116760 Feb 11, 2013
Well then morons, the discovery science mag.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116761 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, clearly there is.
<quoted text>
Dodge-A-Rama!

No, there was no complete DNA.

There were fragments of what appeared to have been DNA.... maybe.

" The soft tissues are collagen, a connective protein. Amino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickens, frogs, newts and other animals."

" Kevin Padian, Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology, has stated "Chemicals that might degrade in a laboratory over a short period need not do so in a protected natural chemical environment...it's time to readjust our thinking."

"Schweitzer first publicly announced her discovery in 1993.[10][11] Since then, the claim of discovering soft tissues in a 68 million year old fossil has been disputed by some molecular biologists. Later research[12] published in PLoS ONE (30 July 2008) challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. The extraction of protein from dinosaur fossils has been confirmed.[13] A more recent study (October 2010) published in PLoS ONE contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Higby_Schwe...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116762 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
With the starting premise of "nothing + nobody = everything", all science would be irrelevant.

straw-man.
One way or another

United States

#116763 Feb 11, 2013
Innuendo and intimidation is the life's blood of all corrupt power that pretends to be just.
One way or another

United States

#116764 Feb 11, 2013
The following is the last line on the second page of the article. What true scientist would just quit on the verge of more knowledge, however unlikely?

"""Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA."""

2nd page---http://discovermagazine .com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UR ky8be9Kc0
One way or another

United States

#116765 Feb 11, 2013

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116766 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Intimidation by science, you pieces of shit, you strangle real science so you can get the brainwashed students to throw off religions power. You hate sharing power and when you have all the power, you will pronounce yourselves gods.
History proves such.
If Schweitzer had not gotten funding, she might not have a job.
Fear caused the mind to stop seeking answers
Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA.
2nd page---http://discovermagazine .com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UR ky8be9Kc0

Truth is she has sequenced as much as she could. She found collagen and some Amino acids. So she could not possibly sequence DNA when she does not even have complete proteins.

PERIOD.
One way or another

United States

#116767 Feb 11, 2013
It seems the Evo morons can't refute discovery magazine.
One way or another

United States

#116768 Feb 11, 2013
The following is the last line on the second page of the article. What true scientist would just quit on the verge of more knowledge, however unlikely?

"""Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA."""

If only the morons could show proof of what they say. Poor children, too stupid to realize such.
One way or another

United States

#116769 Feb 11, 2013
Children that are liars post what they cannot backup.
One way or another

United States

#116770 Feb 11, 2013
Discovery mag would not have written the following for no reason. Only childish morons would not realize such.

Thanks moron

""Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA
One way or another

United States

#116771 Feb 11, 2013
Both sides have pressured Schweitzer so much, they have stopped any more science she could offer. Of course she surely got her funding, but since then, she and science have stopped the research.

Intimidation and innuendo serve the wicked, in the names of justice and science.

""Truth is, Schweitzer hasn't even bothered to look for DNA

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
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 11 min Gillette 604
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min One way or another 16,655
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 22 min Gillette 5
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 29 min Denisova 140,950
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min Agents of Corruption 149,305
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 5 hr paul porter 1
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 15 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web