Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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

#125639 Mar 27, 2013
And of course HST and Russell conveniently ignore the parts of the article that give evidence that dinosaurs and birds are related:
The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes*(birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...

“Earth Science”

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

MI

#125640 Mar 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we debate the need for the difference in 3,500,000,000 years. Meet you there, M'kay?
200,000,000 years is a long time, 200 million years ago Crocodiles were 100,000,000 years away, and the entire class of Aves had 50,000,000 years before it began. Just trying to be exact, the early Triassic was a dangerous time.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125641 Mar 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when properly done. We haven't heard from the experts that they used this tool correctly. Using tools incorrectly gives garbage answers.
You creatards should know that by now because that is the only way that your group seems to be able to use scientific tools.
Immunohistochemistry is not difficult to perform and the reagents are highly specific. Every lab doing it uses positive and negative controls, so that interpretation is accurate. A positive or negative test is virtually black and white.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125642 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you are TOTALLY incorrect.
For if we pretend his BS was true for the sake of argument, the beef is with a different line of evidence unrelated to the common ancestry hypothesis. Evolution itself remains unaffected. Therefore based on the evidence evolution still happened, it's just been speeded up by millions of years.
Which according to creationists is perfectly okay. Since they also accelerate ages of all universal elements therefore sterilizing it, and also require accelerated evolution for Teh Flood. Because fundies say evolution definitely didn't happen but it definitely did happen praise the lord amen.
.
Yes I know this is way over your head.
Documentation that T.Rex is less than 1.5 million years old utterly destroys radiometric dating as a means of assigning dates to fossils. You're standing alone, Dude. Even SZ agrees on this.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125643 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, man! You're supposed to go with the hypothesis that's closest to Goddidit with magic (in 6,000 years), even if it does mean throwing out every single other scientific field with it!
It's entertaining to watch you guys scramble to find anything that will prop up the "evolutiondidit with pixie dust" paradigm.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#125644 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Documentation that T.Rex is less than 1.5 million years old utterly destroys radiometric dating as a means of assigning dates to fossils. You're standing alone, Dude. Even SZ agrees on this.
Really? Then ask him how old the Earth is.
HTS wrote:
It's entertaining to watch you guys scramble to find anything that will prop up the "evolutiondidit with pixie dust" paradigm.
Nice caricature ya got there. That's why you guys have failed for the past 150 years.

By the way, I notice you still haven't apologized for LYING YOUR BIG FAT AZZ OFF yesterday.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125645 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Immunohistochemistry is not difficult to perform and the reagents are highly specific. Every lab doing it uses positive and negative controls, so that interpretation is accurate. A positive or negative test is virtually black and white.
If it was that black and white there should be more reaction to the claim of dinosaur DNA.

Where is your evidence that backs up this claim of yours?

With proper links please.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125646 Mar 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Another relevant quote from the same link:
:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data.“They treat you really bad,” she says.“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence.“If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...
Follow us:@SmithsonianMag on Twitter
It is irrelevant is Sweitzer still drinks evo-koolaid. That tends to validate her research even more.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125647 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Documentation that T.Rex is less than 1.5 million years old utterly destroys radiometric dating as a means of assigning dates to fossils. You're standing alone, Dude. Even SZ agrees on this.
Now that is a false claim. There is practically no evidence that the dinosaur is less than 1.5 million years old and tons of evidence that it is. You continue to fail severely HTS.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#125648 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's entertaining to watch you guys scramble to find anything that will prop up the "evolutiondidit with pixie dust" paradigm.
LAMO!!!!! I do enjoy laughing at the rubbish spewed by anti-science, anti-intellectual creationists. They say the stupidest shit.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125649 Mar 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And of course HST and Russell conveniently ignore the parts of the article that give evidence that dinosaurs and birds are related:
<quoted text>
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...
It is irrelevant whether or not the authors choose to drink evo-koolaid... as long as they drink responsibly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125650 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Then ask him how old the Earth is.
<quoted text>
Nice caricature ya got there. That's why you guys have failed for the past 150 years.
By the way, I notice you still haven't apologized for LYING YOUR BIG FAT AZZ OFF yesterday.
You don't have to apologize when you are lying for Jesus.

“Earth Science”

Level 1

Since: Jan 10

MI

#125651 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There's no mathematical justification for concluding that time and billions of planets can overcome any improbability. The theory of evolution is the only "scientific" theory that relies on ridiculously improbable events.
Listen to what Dick Dawkins said...
"What is more, as far as we know, it [the origin of life] may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe... So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year.  If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it."
*(Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).
Sounds real scientific, doesn't it?
Anything as long as it's not intelligent design.....
Even if it was such a low chance, I found a new estimate: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 planets. That's 24 zeros. SO, you want the odds of life, according to your source, that's 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000. According to YOUR odds, the chances repeat every year, so in the entire existence of the universe, there have been
13,770,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000 chances for life in the universe. Talk about backfiring. Heck, even I was more skeptical than that!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125652 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Documentation that T.Rex is less than 1.5 million years old utterly destroys radiometric dating as a means of assigning dates to fossils. You're standing alone, Dude. Even SZ agrees on this.
What? Another lie by How's That for Stupid.

How many times do I have to tell you that on anomalous piece of data does not upset thousands if not millions of pieces of data.

When you see something like this all you can say is "something funny is going on". There may have been contamination, the theories about how long DNA lasts could be wrong, how the various chemicals that were used could have been used incorrectly. There are many different things that could be considered. Way towards the bottom of the list is the possibility of radiometric dating being wrong.

The odds of that are extremely small indeed.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125653 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant whether or not the authors choose to drink evo-koolaid... as long as they drink responsibly.
Nope, you missed the point creatard. If you accept their presence of DNA then you must accept that birds and dinosaurs are related. You cannot cherry pick data. Now we can say perhaps all of her data is bad. We have a lot of other evidence of birds evolving from dinosaurs. This thin straw is your only hope.

And it has barbs in it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#125654 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try, Dogen. The "outdatd science" is only six months old.
It's laughable to listen to your rationalizations as your cherished religion crashes.

Are you trying the old bait and switch? There is nothing in the peer review literature suggesting that dinosaurs are less than 65 million years old. Your dead belief system not withstanding.

Unless you can provide some evidence I am not impressed by a know and proven liar.

You can regurgitate your lies on demand, but you can never man up and show me the peer review literature. A creotards opinion of the peer review literature is just another way of saying that they lie.

Anytime you want to post some real and up to date research I am waiting.

I have proven you to be an ignorant liar hundreds of times now. I am perfectly willing to bump that up into the thousands.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't you see my refutation of his silly argument? I tore him up. It was brutal (but a lot of fun). I am glad that you appreciate that he is a lot smarter than you, but he is still a lot dumber than the science folk here.
To bad he has nothing better than misinterpretation of outdated science. I still long to cross foils with an intelligent and informed creationist.
Maybe someone will turn up tomorrow. And maybe I will start crapping solid gold.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#125655 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're always harping on "peer-reviewed" science.
Did you read the articles?
No, of course not...because you're not interested in science.

I provided the most current understanding of 65+ million year old dinosaur soft tissue per the peer review literature. I notice you ignored it. That analysis is based not on reading one, but several articles of dinosaur soft tissue finds.

Here are a few

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

Btw, they have not found genetic material, "Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue."

what these studies show is not that Dinosaurs are less that 65 million years old. They show that fossilization was not always complete, especially in thicker bones.

That said, what would cause formerly organic material that is
1. Dehydrated (chemistry free)
2. In anaerobic environment.
3. In bacteria/fungi (decomposer) free environment.

to continue to decay?

Anyone?

Anyone?

So, you got nothing.


“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#125656 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the references.
If you have the courage to look at them, you need to be sitting down.
Kaplan, Matt, "DNA Has a 521-Year Half-Life", Nature [International Weekly Journal of Science], 10 October, 2012
No DNA has been recovered from dinosaurs.

NEXT!
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Wong, Kate, "Molecular Analysis Supports Controversial Claim for Dinosaur Cells" Scientific American, October 18, 2012

No help for you there. Are you on our side all of a sudden?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Thomas, B. Published Reports of Original Soft Tissue Fossils. Posted on icr.org July 21, 2011, accessed March 6, 2013.
http://www.icr.org/article/7382/
ibid.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Thomas, Brian, "Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation
I cannot find this article in any peer review science journals. Are you sure you got the name and author right?

Till then you got bumpkis for your contention of less than 65 million years.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#125657 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, a peer-reviewed article published in Scientific American isn't real science unless it's laced with Darwinian kool-aid?

The article is fine.


The article does not support your assertions.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#125658 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't read the article.
DNA was documented in T.rex bones by immunohistochemistry, and contamination by microorganisms was ruled out.
DNA has a half life of 521 years.
According to scientific data, those bones couldn't be older than 1.5 million years.

No, it was not.

I would ask you to prove it, but we both know you can't.

There was chemistry that was indicative of DNA once being present.

This is the same sort of stupid (and demonstrably wrong) assertions that we have come to expect of you.


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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min 15th Dalai Lama 169,884
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Darsey 95,384
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 3 hr Darsey 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 3 hr Davidjayjordan 100
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The “cumulative evidence” problem Mon jla2w 30
E equals MC squared Jun 17 Jim Ryan 15