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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125556 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Mate,
Its not a staining agent
It's immunohistochemistry
Antibodies
I have provided post after post explaining all this...
And now you go....duh?
W-h-a-t-'-s t-h-e s-t-a-i-n-i-n-g a-g-e-n-t.....
Man
As slow as molasses
Its painful!
IT REALLY IS
Lord, I have taken up my cross....!
Even with a very small victory rusty shows that he is a complete tard:

" 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)"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
<

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125557 Mar 26, 2013
Perhaps I should have restated that. The Moa experiment may not apply to the T-Rex info at all.

Can you please repost the link?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125558 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Nope, still not possible.
What race is "CREATION" perhaps you meant "creatard" oops, "creationist". Now if I am a CREATIONIST RACIST BIGOT that implies that creationists are a separate race. How that would be I don't know. But if that were the case I am sure that it could be successfully argued that creationists are mentally inferior and therefore treating them that way is not racist behavior.
You still fail.
So one more time. Do you know what Sanford did that was so wrong even the Discovery Institute kept their mouths shut? And I may be a CREATIONIST RACIST BIGOT, but I don't have enough power to make the DI keep hide when I say so.
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT through and through

I have evidence...

You may argue semantics...but I really couldn't care less

The bigotry!

Its incredible
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125559 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Even with a very small victory rusty shows that he is a complete tard:
" 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)"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
<
Your link does not work

Summarise what you're trying to say
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125560 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Perhaps I should have restated that. The Moa experiment may not apply to the T-Rex info at all.
Can you please repost the link?
Man

You expect me to do all the work?

I have already re-posted this stuff half a dozen times

Which post to you require a re-re-re-post of?

The CREATION RACIST BIGOT one?

Or the one where you're the Champ of the Chumps?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125561 Mar 26, 2013
Reading an article on how they determined the half life of DNA I found this phrase:

"Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should, in theory, degrade at a set rate"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

The presence of DNA is still doubtful in T-Rex. There could be other explanations for the very light staining, and yes rusty, it is a stain that they use, of supposed dinosaur DNA. The phrase about groundwater implies that the Moa bones were preserved in a normal wet environment. I have no idea what sort of environment the T-Rex bones were preserved in.

Oh, more searching to do.

One thing I am sure of. The experts in the field are aware of all of this and are not convinced by people like rusty. In other words when it comes to experts or idiots I will go with the experts all of the time.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125562 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Even with a very small victory rusty shows that he is a complete tard:
" 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)"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
<
SZ

I just cant do this anymore

You have to lift your game....

Please learn to read

Read what you have posted

I'm off

I just can not bear such plain dumbness

I cant
----------

Sorry Lord.....but I have tried.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125563 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link does not work
Summarise what you're trying to say
I must have messed it up. The link is there to show that the quote I made was real. In other words it was a stain that they used tard.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125564 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a CREATION RACIST BIGOT through and through
I have evidence...
You may argue semantics...but I really couldn't care less
The bigotry!
Its incredible
You have no evidence. You don't even know what is or is not evidence.

But let me get this straight: You are now claiming to be of an inferior race right?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#125565 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have trouble understanding a scientific paper....Just ask...
You see, ever since I was taught how to read in Kindergarten....there's been no looking back for me
I, unlike you, CAN read plain English
From this reference here---->
Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Cleland TP, Bern M. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules. Bone. 2013 Jan;52(1):414-23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010. Epub 2012 Oct 17. PubMed PMID: 23085295.
This excerpt from the abstract--->
"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',6'-diamidino-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."
----------
From the same reference as above--->
"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI).
"Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. "
And also from the same abstract--->
"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."
----------
This may sound like creation.com to you, you bigot, but it isn't
It's from the abstract on PubMed--->
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085295
----------
You see, folks, whenever SZ sees evidence against evolution, he immediately goes into CREATION RACIST BIGOT mode
----------
DNA in dinosaurs that has been shown to have a half life of 521 years
--------
Who's the idiot now? SZ, Champ of the Chumps and fully inflated with arrogance and pride
We've been over this before. Half life is a term used in physics to determine a very precise rate of decay of isotopes in specific elements. DNA preservation, on the other hand, is dependent on local conditions. As the abstract pointed out, under absolutely ideal conditions, DNA can still be recognized as DNA after millions of years. I don't know how you could have missed the real issue (ie., the error of assigning an arbitrary 521 years as a supposed half life to DNA). We discussed this for at least 15 or 20 pages a while back. Do you just read your own posts, or do you just make it a habit to ignore anything that you don't want know about?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125566 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ
I just cant do this anymore
You have to lift your game....
Please learn to read
Read what you have posted
I'm off
I just can not bear such plain dumbness
I cant
----------
Sorry Lord.....but I have tried.....
Yes, we know that you can't deal with yourself. But the word "stain" is as clear as day in the sentence that you quoted.

What a tard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125567 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Man
You expect me to do all the work?
I have already re-posted this stuff half a dozen times
Which post to you require a re-re-re-post of?
The CREATION RACIST BIGOT one?
Or the one where you're the Champ of the Chumps?
That's okay, I found it myself.

I don't expect you to do all of the work. In fact I have already corrected you on the stain issue.

And no, I don't need any reposts of the fact that you think you are a member of an inferior race. You might be, it is possible that you have more than your share of Neanderthal genes.

And you forgot, it is you and HTS that are trying to take over Jimbos position. That is a position that can only be held by a creatard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125568 Mar 26, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been over this before. Half life is a term used in physics to determine a very precise rate of decay of isotopes in specific elements. DNA preservation, on the other hand, is dependent on local conditions. As the abstract pointed out, under absolutely ideal conditions, DNA can still be recognized as DNA after millions of years. I don't know how you could have missed the real issue (ie., the error of assigning an arbitrary 521 years as a supposed half life to DNA). We discussed this for at least 15 or 20 pages a while back. Do you just read your own posts, or do you just make it a habit to ignore anything that you don't want know about?
Sadly I ignored that debate since I was arguing something else or somewhere else at the time.

Now that you mention it the 521 year number seems totally arbitrary. The amount of variation depending upon climate and specie would be huge. The DNA in a small dinosaur whose bones are much more exposed to the elements would have a DNA half life much shorter than the DNA half life of a larger dinosaur. Then you have wet versus dry and warm versus cold. So many variables and yet they came up with 521 years.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125569 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know that you can't deal with yourself. But the word "stain" is as clear as day in the sentence that you quoted.
What a tard.
You quite hysterical aren't you?

How do scientists 'see' an antibody reacting with an antigen?

Go check

THE WIKI!!!!!!!!!

Go The Wiki!!!
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125570 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly I ignored that debate since I was arguing something else or somewhere else at the time.
Now that you mention it the 521 year number seems totally arbitrary. The amount of variation depending upon climate and specie would be huge. The DNA in a small dinosaur whose bones are much more exposed to the elements would have a DNA half life much shorter than the DNA half life of a larger dinosaur. Then you have wet versus dry and warm versus cold. So many variables and yet they came up with 521 years.
Huh?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125571 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You quite hysterical aren't you?
How do scientists 'see' an antibody reacting with an antigen?
Go check
THE WIKI!!!!!!!!!
Go The Wiki!!!
No, I am quite calm. I was merely showing you that you were wrong.

The article quite clearly stated that the material that reacted with the supposed DNA was a stain. How do you think that they observe it tard?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125572 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Poor wusty. His witto bwain has oberheated.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125573 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am quite calm. I was merely showing you that you were wrong.
The article quite clearly stated that the material that reacted with the supposed DNA was a stain. How do you think that they observe it tard?
Where was I wrong?

You have no idea what you're talking about

Your ignorance is showing

You see

Since I can read

I have a distinct advantage over you---> since Kindergarten, Bub

Immunoflourescence is the means by which the antibody antigen complex is detected

The abstract is stating that antibodies to DNA in dino bone cells react in the same way as DNA intercalating stains do

Its a positive verification that these microstructures are DNA

Heavens!
You're dumb

And you cant read

I'm astonished!

Is the education system THAT bad in the US?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125574 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where was I wrong?
You have no idea what you're talking about
Your ignorance is showing
You see
Since I can read
I have a distinct advantage over you---> since Kindergarten, Bub
Immunoflourescence is the means by which the antibody antigen complex is detected
The abstract is stating that antibodies to DNA in dino bone cells react in the same way as DNA intercalating stains do
Its a positive verification that these microstructures are DNA
Heavens!
You're dumb
And you cant read
I'm astonished!
Is the education system THAT bad in the US?
You idiot you laughed at me when I mentioned the stain.

You can't remember what you posted yourself.

Like I said you are a complete tard.

Do I need to go back and to copy your moronic error?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125575 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Mate,
Its not a staining agent
It's immunohistochemistry
Antibodies
<snip>
Here you go tard. This is the first post on the previous page where you tried to deny that they used a stain to observe the supposed DNA.

We are still not sure about that. You tried to deny that the material you use was a stain so I quoted the article.

Then, just to make sure that you were a super tard you quoted me point out that it was a stain, to be specific an intercalating stain called Propidium Iodide.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Science 81,885
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 57 min Al Caplan 164,317
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Science 2,201
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 hr Science 33,086
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web