Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125670 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You can take immunohistochemistry to the bank.
Life and death treatment decisions are made every day relying on its validity. It is highly specific.

Oh, HTS is pretending to know medicine again.

Isn't that cute!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125671 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is false.
No (intact) DNA. No bone cells, No blood cells, no intact soft tissue.
Don't you remember me and others handing you your head on this more than once?
Dogen, it's obvious that you either have insufficient knowledge to understand scientific articles or you are so drunk on evo-koolaid that you can't decifer truth when it falls in your lap. You are attempting to argue the unarguable... In in so doing are making an abject fool of yourself.

DNA, osteocytes, collagen erythrocytes, and cell membranes were scientifically documented to exist in incompletely fossilized T. Rex bones. No one is arguing that point. The main objection placed by evolutionists was that the specimen had been contaminated by biofilm produced by microorganisms... But that theory was ruled out.

If you want to continue to rant and scream that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, be my guest.....no self-respecting scientist agrees with you.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125672 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And none has.
However, autolysis does not occur in a dehydrate environment.
The only remaining mechanism for DNA denigration is radiation.
What scientific reason do you have to assume that a fossil remained completely dry for 67 million years?
Do you have any geological evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125673 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.

And what did the test demonstrate?

HINT: it did NOT show the presence of DNA.

It demonstrated proteins that COULD be DNA remnants.1.

Chemical analyses of fossil bone.
Zheng W, Schweitzer MH.
Methods Mol Biol. 2012;915:153-72. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-977-8_10.

Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein. Schweitzer MH, Suo Z, Avci R, Asara JM, Allen MA, Arce FT, Horner JR.
Science. 2007 Apr 13;316(5822):277-80.

Molecular preservation in Late Cretaceous sauropod dinosaur eggshells. Schweitzer MH, Chiappe L, Garrido AC, Lowenstein JM, Pincus SH. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Apr 22;272(1565):775-84.

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/paper:22907408


Game set and match

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125674 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.

No one had documented t-rex as being a day less than 65 million years old.

I realize you do not have the education to understand why, but just trust me for now.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125675 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.

Still waiting for you to support any of your assertions.

BTW, the scientific literature supports that t-rex is 65+ million years old.

The scientific literature does NOT support Dino DNA being found.

Here are your best shots:

"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."

Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules. Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Cleland TP, Bern M.
Bone. 2013 Jan;52(1):414-23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010. Epub 2012 Oct 17.

"The presence of T. rex sequences indicates that their peptide bonds were remarkably stable. "
Protein sequences from mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex revealed by mass spectrometry. Asara JM, Schweitzer MH, Freimark LM, Phillips M, Cantley LC. Science. 2007 Apr 13;316(5822):280-5.

Thats it, proteins and peptide bonds. No DNA.

Sorry.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125676 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant is Sweitzer still drinks evo-koolaid. That tends to validate her research even more.

Proteins and peptide bonds are all she found.

Even in a near perfect preservative environment that is all that is left after 65 million years. Even less than would be expected by radioactive decay.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125677 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yu didn't do your homework Dogen.
The moa article said that no DNA immunoreactivity would be detectable after 1.5 million years.

Sorry man, but you got to do better than this.

Put the kool-aid down! It is bad for your brain! And for your ability to inhale oxygen!

The fact is we have no idea how long it takes DNA, that is perfectly preserved, to decay.

we won't know till we can preform some controlled studies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125678 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientific reason do you have to assume that a fossil remained completely dry for 67 million years?
Do you have any geological evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?

The fossil did not necessarily remain completely dry.

what was inside was sealed inside, however, was sealed in rock.

What scientific reason do you have to assume that dinosaurs were magically poofed into existence?

Do you have any geological evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125679 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, it's obvious that you either have insufficient knowledge to understand scientific articles or you are so drunk on evo-koolaid that you can't decifer truth when it falls in your lap. You are attempting to argue the unarguable... In in so doing are making an abject fool of yourself.
DNA, osteocytes, collagen erythrocytes, and cell membranes were scientifically documented to exist in incompletely fossilized T. Rex bones. No one is arguing that point. The main objection placed by evolutionists was that the specimen had been contaminated by biofilm produced by microorganisms... But that theory was ruled out.
If you want to continue to rant and scream that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, be my guest.....no self-respecting scientist agrees with you.

I just lost my reply to this when my browser crashed.

Short version.

DNA - Not yet found in dino bones.

osteocytes & collagen erythrocytes, yes. I would add "big deal" but really it is pretty cool.

Cell membranes = No. Evidence that there were once cell membranes = yes.


I have never seen contamination ruled out, but I personally don't believe there was contamination. That is just an opinion, however.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125680 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear moron,
DNA did NOT survive as an intact molecule in ANY dinosaur finds. The ONLY thing that has been found is the remnant chemistry of fully decayed DNA.
If your creotard sites did not tell you that then they have effectively lied to you. And you were gullible enough to believe it.
I pointed that out to him earlier. Like a good fundie, he ignored it.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125681 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The age of the Moa bones is not an issue. There is no DNA is dinosaur bones.
Also we do not know the decay rate of dehydrated organic chemicals in a water free, biotic free, oxygen free environment.
Immunohistochemistry is the best of forensic science

Additionally DOUBLE-STRANDED DNA was found-->DNA intercalating DAPI stains verified this

And histones---> that verifies NO contamination by bacteria

And the antibodies to PHEX

Unequivocal validation of DNA in dino bones
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125682 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossil did not necessarily remain completely dry.
what was inside was sealed inside, however, was sealed in rock.
What scientific reason do you have to assume that dinosaurs were magically poofed into existence?
Do you have any geological evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?
Poor chap is definitely losing it now....

Listen Dogem

You're wrong

Grow up

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125683 Mar 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Immunohistochemistry is the best of forensic science
Additionally DOUBLE-STRANDED DNA was found-->DNA intercalating DAPI stains verified this
And histones---> that verifies NO contamination by bacteria
And the antibodies to PHEX
Unequivocal validation of DNA in dino bones
Yet you seem unable to provide a reference for this. Why is that, I wonder?

"Four independent lines of evidence support the presence of a component chemically consistent with DNA." - Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Mary Higby Schweitzer

http://www.thebonejournal.com/article/S8756-3...

"...a component chemically consistent with DNA." A COMPONENT!!! Not intact or complete DNA.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125684 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The fossil did not necessarily remain completely dry.
what was inside was sealed inside, however, was sealed in rock.
What scientific reason do you have to assume that dinosaurs were magically poofed into existence?
Do you have any geological evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim?
How long does it take a decomposing organism to become hermetically sealed in rock?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125685 Mar 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

What scientific reason do you have to assume that dinosaurs were magically poofed into existence?
Typical ire irrelevant Dogen distraction.
Fallacy of the false alternative.....
Who's saying dinosaurs were "proofed into existence."
I'm saying they're not 67 million years old.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125686 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ire irrelevant Dogen distraction.
Fallacy of the false alternative.....
Who's saying dinosaurs were "proofed into existence."
I'm saying they're not 67 million years old.
Right .... and humans used to ride them ... right?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125687 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ire irrelevant Dogen distraction.
Fallacy of the false alternative.....
Who's saying dinosaurs were "proofed into existence."
I'm saying they're not 67 million years old.
Nobody give a rats ass about what you're saying. Only what can be proven. Where's your references? Citations? Anything?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125688 Mar 27, 2013
Interesting to watch the evo-tards implode as their religion burns.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125689 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
Interesting to watch the evo-tards implode as their religion burns.
So ... what you are saying is after thousands of posts, you've still got no viable alternative to ToE other than "Magic Sky Daddy diddit with pixie dust.".... REALLY???

Why am I not surprised??

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min It aint necessari... 205,309
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 59 min Thinking 18,677
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr THE LONE WORKER 43,360
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 11 hr Reno HOOCK 921
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Aug 27 One way or another 16
More from around the web