Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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

#125606 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The DNA survived n T.rex bones that had been PRESUMED to be 67 million years old.
You have that backwards numbnuts.

The 67 million year old T-Rex bone is presumed to have DNA in it.

The amount of evidence for the bone being millions of years old makes its millions of years age undeniable. The amount of evidence for DNA being present is much much much weaker. If you want to insist that some part is presumed you would go for the one with the WEAKER evidence, not the claim that has the STRONGER evidence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125607 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Mike..
You're going to assume that a moa, that is 2,000 years old, could not have any intact DNA in its bones but T.rex. Can preserve DNA for 67 million years?
That's not what I said. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just another compulsive liar?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125608 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Mike..
You're going to assume that a moa, that is 2,000 years old, could not have any intact DNA in its bones but T.rex. Can preserve DNA for 67 million years?
What? Your math is incredibly poor. That is not what the article stated at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125609 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A T.Rex younger than 1.5 million years annihilates radiometric dating of fossils,
Yes, that would be right.

Luckily for us no one, except for a handful of tards, is making that completely idiotic statement.

Radiometric dating is only one of many methods that tell us the dinosaur fossil is many millions of years old.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#125610 Mar 27, 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.
I have some doubt that the 521 years was anything other than someone's guess. The very idea of half life is a reference to isotope decay, something that has nothing to do with DNA.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#125611 Mar 27, 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?
OK. Since you can read, you must be saying that you agree with the conclusion of the abstract, yes?

The abstract calls into question the supposed 521 year half life of DNA. It proposes that more research is needed to determine the limits of DNA decay.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125612 Mar 27, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have some doubt that the 521 years was anything other than someone's guess. The very idea of half life is a reference to isotope decay, something that has nothing to do with DNA.
You are correct. I have never dealt with "chemical half lives" before and there are not too many articles on it. One article I found pointed out that chemical half lives are not constants since the rate of reaction is dependent upon concentration. So it looks like the article about Moa DNA may be an oversimplification.

As I told rusty he had one small data point in his favor and it was not an undisputed point. It looks like his point is fading away.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#125613 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "idiotic article" that you refer to was peer-reviewed by numerous paleontologists and published in Scientific American. Did you bother to read it?... Or are you still processing the fact that your religion has been debunked?
Publication is not the antecedent of peer-review.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#125614 Mar 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have that backwards numbnuts.
The 67 million year old T-Rex bone is presumed to have DNA in it.
The amount of evidence for the bone being millions of years old makes its millions of years age undeniable. The amount of evidence for DNA being present is much much much weaker. If you want to insist that some part is presumed you would go for the one with the WEAKER evidence, not the claim that has the STRONGER evidence.
There is no evidence that T.rex is 67 million years old. Dating a rock next to a fossil is junk science. Immunohistochemistry is experimental, verifiable science.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#125615 Mar 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Publication is not the antecedent of peer-review.
LowellGuy rule: Drinking evo-koolaid is the antecedent of peer-review.

Did you read the articles? They were peer-reviewed.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#125616 Mar 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have that backwards numbnuts.
The 67 million year old T-Rex bone is presumed to have DNA in it.
The amount of evidence for the bone being millions of years old makes its millions of years age undeniable. The amount of evidence for DNA being present is much much much weaker. If you want to insist that some part is presumed you would go for the one with the WEAKER evidence, not the claim that has the STRONGER evidence.
The T.rex bone HAS DNA IN IT.
You're going down with a sinking ship, SZ.
Follow the lead of the rats and JUMP OFF.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125617 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The T.rex bone HAS DNA IN IT.
You're going down with a sinking ship, SZ.
Follow the lead of the rats and JUMP OFF.
I asked you to back that up. Having not done so, I'm left to conclude you're just bullshitting.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125618 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There is no evidence that T.rex is 67 million years old. Dating a rock next to a fossil is junk science. Immunohistochemistry is experimental, verifiable science.
You are in effect admitting you are wrong when you knowingly mischaracterize how radiometric dating is done. Why don't you attempt to debunk the actual claims? Oh, that's right. You can't.

In other words when you attempt a strawman argument you lose.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125619 Mar 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe runs on magic, don't cha know!?! All this natural law stuff is just something some egg head thunk up! <sarc!>
Dang those smart people! How dare they think.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#125620 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Immunohistochemistry is experimental, verifiable science.
....Whaaaaaat?!?!!?11??

Oh, and Immunohistochemistry is not a valid experiment on non-organic material.

...you know, like FOSSILS..."DOCTOR".

<<snicker>>

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125621 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The T.rex bone HAS DNA IN IT.
You're going down with a sinking ship, SZ.
Follow the lead of the rats and JUMP OFF.
No, the T-rex bone may have DNA in it. That is not a well proven claim. There is some evidence of it, but the evidence is not conclusive.

Second there are flaws in the Moa study and applying it to the case of the T-rex fossil. The claim of 521 years half-life is bad chemistry, it is not an absolute. It only applies to those bones at that place. And the article even hints at that.
LowellGuy

United States

#125622 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
LowellGuy rule: Drinking evo-koolaid is the antecedent of peer-review.
Did you read the articles? They were peer-reviewed.
SciAmer is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#125623 Mar 27, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fossil-species-f...
Tiktaalik "cousin"?

New fossil species from a fish-eat-fish world when limbed animals evolved
March 27, 2013

Scientists who famously discovered the lobe-finned fish fossil Tiktaalik roseae, a species with some of the clearest evidence of the evolutionary transition from fish to limbed animals, have described another new species of predatory fossil lobe-finned fish fish from the same time and place. By describing more Devonian species, they're gaining a greater understanding of the "fish-eat-fish world" that drove the evolution of limbed vertebrates.

"We call it a 'fish-eat-fish world,' an ecosystem where you really needed to escape predation," said Dr. Ted Daeschler, describing life in the Devonian period in what is now far-northern Canada.

This was the environment where the famous fossil fish species Tiktaalik roseae lived 375 million years ago. This lobe-finned fish, co-discovered by Daeschler, an associate professor at Drexel University in the Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science, and associate curator and vice president of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, and his colleagues Dr. Neil Shubin and Dr. Farish A. Jenkins, Jr., was first described in Nature in 2006.This species received scientific and popular acclaim for providing some of the clearest evidence of the evolutionary transition from lobe-finned fish to limbed animals, or tetrapods.

Daeschler and his colleagues from the Tiktaalik research, including Academy research associate Dr. Jason Downs, have now described another new lobe-finned fish species from the same time and place in the Canadian Arctic. They describe the new species, Holoptychius bergmanni, in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

"We're fleshing out our knowledge of the community of vertebrates that lived at this important location," said Downs, who was lead author of the paper. He said describing species from this important time and place will help the scientific community understand the transition from finned vertebrates to limbed vertebrates that occurred in this ecosystem.

"It was a tough world back there in the Devonian. There were a lot of big predatory fish with big teeth and heavy armor of interlocking scales on their bodies," said Daeschler.

Daeschler said Holoptychius and Tiktaalik were both large predatory fishes adapted to life in stream environments. The two species may have competed with one another for similar prey, although it is possible they specialized in slightly different niches; Tiktaalik's tetrapod-like skeletal features made it especially well suited to living in the shallowest waters.

The fossil specimens of Holoptychis bergmanni that researchers used to characterize this new species come from multiple individuals and include lower jaws with teeth, skull pieces including the skull roof and braincase, and parts of the shoulder girdles. The complete fish would have been 2 to 3 feet long when it was alive.

"The three-dimensional preservation of this material is spectacular," Daeschler said. "For something as old as this, we'll really be able to collect some good information about the anatomy of these animals."

The researchers named the new fossil fish species Holoptychius bergmanni in honor of the late Martin Bergmann, former director of the Polar Continental Shelf Program (PCSP), Natural Resources Canada, the organization that provided logistical support during the team's Arctic research expeditions spanning more than a decade. Bergmann was killed in a plane crash in 2011 shortly after the team's most recent field season in Nunavut.

<<Truncated for brevity. More at link above.>>
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#125624 Mar 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to back that up. Having not done so, I'm left to conclude you're just bullshitting.
Mike you were there when we went through all this a little while back. Dr. Schweitzer and the others reported bone and blood cells and yes, nucleic DNA intact. The DNA was found where you would expect to find real Dino DNA; where it is supposed to be - in the bone cell's nucleus. Do you not remember?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125625 Mar 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike you were there when we went through all this a little while back. Dr. Schweitzer and the others reported bone and blood cells and yes, nucleic DNA intact. The DNA was found where you would expect to find real Dino DNA; where it is supposed to be - in the bone cell's nucleus. Do you not remember?
Then it would have to be found in bone, not fossils.

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) 1 min DanFromSmithville 35,572
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min MIDutch 151,374
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min ChromiuMan 199,542
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 31 min ChristineM 15,025
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 14 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 14 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 16 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web