Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120656 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you telling me that when a new fossil is discovered, that the rocks associated with it are radiometrically dated prior to assigned a date to that fossil?

YES! Usually volcanic ash layers, but many other things can be dated as well.


[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> Are you saying that those dates invariably agree with biostratigraphy?

Not invariably but nearly always.


[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> If you have a refererence, I will stand corrected. By the way, I clicked on the reference you posted and got nothing.

Are you even aware of all the ways that things from the past are dated?

Do you know there are over 40 different dating methods and all scientific digs use multiple dating methods?

Do you know the difference between absolute and relative dating?


Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:

Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials
Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications
Potassium-argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record
Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates [1]
Lead Corrosion Dating.[2]
Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6]
Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
Rehydroxylation dating- for dating ceramic materials[7]

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


Some relative dating methods are:
Paleomagnetism
Tephrochronology
Oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy
Uniformitarianism
Intrusive relationships
Cross-cutting relationships
Inclusions and components
Horizontality
Superposition
Faunal succession
Lateral continuity
Inclusions of Igneous rocks
Included fragments

Not to mention
Acanthochronology
Astronomical chronology
Herbchronology
Rehydroxylation dating

Etc!

This is NOT a complete list!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dating_...
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120657 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?
<quoted text>
You referenced a single instance. I answer it.
Your answer was "coincidence". That is a pretty pathetic answer in explaining a complexity of nature such as the evolution of a finely balanced sensory organ.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120658 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, if vertbrate and cephalopod eyes were "100% identical", you would be convinced of the fallacy of evolution? What about the independent evolution of pentadactylism in amphibians and anthracosaurs? How do you explain that?
Perhaps not as independent as you think:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806778
Mugwump

UK

#120659 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a YouTube video be "censored" anyway? There was no foul language, there are no sexy pictures of women. What sort of censor do you use on your computer?
Reality ?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120660 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I clicked on the link and got nothing. I don't know if my computer is acting up or if you're just blindly posting irrelevant links? what does the article say?

Do you have PDF reader software installed on your machine?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120661 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you even aware of all the ways that things from the past are dated?
Do you know there are over 40 different dating methods and all scientific digs use multiple dating methods?
Do you know the difference between absolute and relative dating?
Absolute dating methods rely on using some physical property of an object or sample to calculate its age. Examples are:
Radiocarbon dating - for dating organic materials
Dendrochronology - for dating trees, and objects made from wood, but also very important for calibrating radiocarbon dates
Thermoluminescence dating - for dating inorganic material including ceramics
Optically stimulated luminescence or optical dating for archaeological applications
Potassium-argon dating - for dating fossilized hominid remains
Numismatics - many coins have the date of their production written on them or their use is specified in the historical record
Archaeomagnetic dating - Clay lined fire hearths take on a magnetic moment pointing to the North Pole each time they are fired and then cool. The position of the North Pole for the last time the fire hearth was used can be determined and compared to charts of known locations and dates [1]
Lead Corrosion Dating.[2]
Amino acid dating[3][4][5][6]
Obsidian hydration dating - a geochemical method of determining age in either absolute or relative terms of an artifact made of obsidian
Rehydroxylation dating- for dating ceramic materials[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodolo...
Some relative dating methods are:
Paleomagnetism
Tephrochronology
Oxygen isotope chronostratigraphy
Uniformitarianism
Intrusive relationships
Cross-cutting relationships
Inclusions and components
Horizontality
Superposition
Faunal succession
Lateral continuity
Inclusions of Igneous rocks
Included fragments
Not to mention
Acanthochronology
Astronomical chronology
Herbchronology
Rehydroxylation dating
Etc!
This is NOT a complete list!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dating_...
The references you posted did not document what I was requesting. In practice, is radiometric dating invariably used to date a fossil? Has radiometric dating documented the assigned dates of australopicithine fossils? I don't think so, and I'm waiting with an open mind for documentation that I'm wrong.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120662 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It has been labeled as a fraud by those who aren't interested in the truth. You fail to consider that the reason it was sent for dating in the first place was because collagen and blood vessels were observed in what was believed to be a fossil. Do you think that's consistent with a 140 million year old fossil. If shellac is such a known contaminant, why didn't the lab simply scrape off the shallac before analyzing the two specimens? It's always easy to scream "fraud" after you're caught with your pants down and your cherished theory lies in ruins.
No, it is labeled as a fraud by people who knew that the bones were pained with shellac, a very very common process to preserve fossils.

The source of the fossils was not being dishonest when they did this since the fragility of fossils is well known and painting with shellac is commonplace. The source of fossils did not know how the sample that they sold was about to be abused. The testing place was not dishonest. They told the creatards the drawback of the sample that they were given. The dishonesty came from the creatards that did not tell their source or the tester what they were doing.

If they were honest they would have been given a fossil with no shellac on it. If they were honest the testing source would have checked for shellac on the sample. They weren't honest. They still are not honest, or at least the posters of that claim were not honest since this was busted years ago.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120663 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you telling me that when a new fossil is discovered, that the rocks associated with it are radiometrically dated prior to assigned a date to that fossil? Are you saying that those dates invariably agree with biostratigraphy?
If you have a refererence, I will stand corrected. By the way, I clicked on the reference you posted and got nothing.
Google "absolute radiometric dating". Many sites there that are NOT associated with " Creation.com ".

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html has a section entitled "Responding to Creationists". Please read up on this to avoid future silly arguments.

Also try http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

For "Radiometric Dating -- A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

"About the Author: Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. He spent two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (La Jolla, CA) where he studied isotopes of helium, neon, argon, and nitrogen in terrestrial rocks. He worked seven years in the Geological and Planetary Sciences Division at Caltech, where he continued the study of meteorites and worked for NASA on the feasibility of a space mission to return solar wind samples to Earth for study. Dr. Wiens wrote the first edition of this paper while in Pasadena. In 1997 he joined the Space and Atmospheric Sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has been in charge of building and flying the payload for the solar-wind mission, as well as developing new instruments for other space missions. He has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other."
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120664 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not as independent as you think:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806778
Pentadactylism is more than five digits. It's also homology of carpals, redius/ulna and humerus, as well as analogous bones of the lower extremities. There is noting in the pectoral or pelvic fins of a fish that would require such a specific anatomy to evolve.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120665 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your answer was "coincidence". That is a pretty pathetic answer in explaining a complexity of nature such as the evolution of a finely balanced sensory organ.
You proposed a hypothetical. I gave you a reasonable answer to a rather ridiculous scenario. Now you're going to start whining about it. Now THAT is pathetic.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120666 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It has been labeled as a fraud by those who aren't interested in the truth. You fail to consider that the reason it was sent for dating in the first place was because collagen and blood vessels were observed in what was believed to be a fossil. Do you think that's consistent with a 140 million year old fossil.


Yes. It appears that the fossilization process hermetically seals the inside of the bone in an environment free from oxygen and microbiotic activity (decay).

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If shellac is such a known contaminant, why didn't the lab simply scrape off the shallac before analyzing the two specimens?

I don't know that they didn't. I would not expect that would be the source of problems, but it could be.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It's always easy to scream "fraud" after you're caught with your pants down and your cherished theory lies in ruins.

Yes, but we aren't talking about creationism right now, we are talking about evolution.

Now that you know that these samples were dated in multiple ways (as always) including U-Pb decay (which is accurate over a wide range of time) what are you going to do. The weight of evidence is vastly on the side of the bones being 100+ million years.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120667 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Pentadactylism is more than five digits. It's also homology of carpals, redius/ulna and humerus, as well as analogous bones of the lower extremities. There is noting in the pectoral or pelvic fins of a fish that would require such a specific anatomy to evolve.

Exactly!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120668 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Pentadactylism is more than five digits. It's also homology of carpals, redius/ulna and humerus, as well as analogous bones of the lower extremities. There is noting in the pectoral or pelvic fins of a fish that would require such a specific anatomy to evolve.
And the peer review on that?

"...require such a specific anatomy to evolve."

Require. Funny. You still don't get it do you?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120669 Feb 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "absolute radiometric dating". Many sites there that are NOT associated with " Creation.com ".
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html has a section entitled "Responding to Creationists". Please read up on this to avoid future silly arguments.
Also try http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
For "Radiometric Dating -- A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
"About the Author: Dr. Wiens received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Wheaton College and a PhD from the University of Minnesota, doing research on meteorites and moon rocks. He spent two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (La Jolla, CA) where he studied isotopes of helium, neon, argon, and nitrogen in terrestrial rocks. He worked seven years in the Geological and Planetary Sciences Division at Caltech, where he continued the study of meteorites and worked for NASA on the feasibility of a space mission to return solar wind samples to Earth for study. Dr. Wiens wrote the first edition of this paper while in Pasadena. In 1997 he joined the Space and Atmospheric Sciences group at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he has been in charge of building and flying the payload for the solar-wind mission, as well as developing new instruments for other space missions. He has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other."
I went to the two links you posted. I didn't read every word, but I couldn't find anything that specifically stated that radiometric dating was used in practice to date new fossils. ChristineM posted references of prehuman fossils authoritately stated to be 4-7 million years old. How are those numbers generated...specificially? I know in the past it was through biostratigraphy. My posts are claimed to be outdated. If that is true, where is the documentation that anything has changed in the practice of assigning dates to fossils?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120670 Feb 28, 2013
One more point, you cannot "scrape shellac off".

Do you even know what shellac is? It is the forerunner of most modern furniture finishes. On a sedimentary rock it would penetrate the surface pores. That is one of the reasons it helps to hold fossils together. To scrape if off you would have to scrape off the outer layer of the fossil

Also, the lab that was used did not date fossils. Why? Well as Potholer54 put it: "OY!! There's no "bleeping" carbon in it. So they would not expect to get a shellac coated sample. Why would some idiot send in a shellac coated sample for C14 testing, oh wait, because those people were complete and utter creatards.

HTS, you are wandering into Jimbo idiocy here. Admit that you are wrong and let it go.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120671 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And the peer review on that?
"...require such a specific anatomy to evolve."
Require. Funny. You still don't get it do you?
The independent evolution of pentadactylism in two separate lineages logically suggests that evolution needed to take a specific course to arrive at a specific endpoint.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120672 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> That is horizontal microevolution and is a non-issue. No one disputes microevolution.
Good! Because macroevolution and microevolution are the same exact thing. The only difference is the amount of time involved.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120673 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why we say someone has eyes like an octopus? instead of like an eagle?
How about some real challenges that have not been done to death and refuted ages ago?
Our inverted retina is great design...
How would you arrange for heat dissipation and gas exchange?
The choroid can't go in front of the retina......its opague!
It contains the red blood cells...in the blood vessels carrying the blood supply for the retina's very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).
This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati has said:
"The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity!
More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons.
Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1,000 to one.
His Ph.D. thesis and published papers in secular journals largely involve a technique called Raman spectroscopy, which analyzes extremely weak scattering at a slightly different frequency from that of the incident laser radiation.
The major equipment hazard for Raman spectroscopists is scanning at the incident frequency—the still weak Rayleigh scattering at the same frequency would blow the photomultiplier (the newer ones have an automatic shut-off).
He managed to safely scan the Rayleigh line (for calibration) only by using filters to attenuate the intensity of light entering the photomultiplier by a factor of 10-7 to 10-8. But having to take such an extreme safety precaution made him envious and admiring of the way the eye is so brilliantly designed to cope with a far wider range of intensities.
Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chap...
http://creation.com/is-our-inverted-retina-re...
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwin...
http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-...
__________
"Cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens."
AND, Cephalopods are likely colour blind
Jonathan D. Sarfati (born 1 October 1964) is a young Earth creationist and former New Zealand national chess champion (1987-1988) Sarfati has PhD in chemistry and works for Creation Ministries International (CMI), a non-profit Christian Apologetics ministry.

More bull crap references. Was he in the same home school class as you? Did you score each other's tests?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120674 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
One more point, you cannot "scrape shellac off".
Do you even know what shellac is? It is the forerunner of most modern furniture finishes. On a sedimentary rock it would penetrate the surface pores. That is one of the reasons it helps to hold fossils together. To scrape if off you would have to scrape off the outer layer of the fossil
Also, the lab that was used did not date fossils. Why? Well as Potholer54 put it: "OY!! There's no "bleeping" carbon in it. So they would not expect to get a shellac coated sample. Why would some idiot send in a shellac coated sample for C14 testing, oh wait, because those people were complete and utter creatards.
HTS, you are wandering into Jimbo idiocy here. Admit that you are wrong and let it go.
Shellac could be easily scraped off...Your uncontrolled ranting only demonstrates to everyone that you're losing the argument miserably. The bone obviously could be radiocarbon dated because it had collagen and blood vessels in it... so why are you referring to those who reject evolution as "creatards" when they were only attempting to date what appeared to be organic material? If you found a dinosaur bone that had residual bone histology visible, wouldn't you want to know what radiometric C-14 had to say?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120675 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Good! Because macroevolution and microevolution are the same exact thing. The only difference is the amount of time involved.
Your absurd logic has been soundly debunked repeatedly. Anyone remotely familiar with science understand that wild extrapolations such as you propose are nearly always invalid.

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
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 43 min Eagle 12 - 127
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 83,139
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 2 hr Reb Bacchus 40
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 2 hr 15th Dalai Lama 140
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr 15th Dalai Lama 222,991
Evolution is boring as Hell 3 hr Science 8
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr randomGuy 1,813
More from around the web