Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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To bad he has nothing better than misinterpretation of outdated science.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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125659 Mar 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
Dogem
You are a fruit cake if ever I saw one

Translation: Russell just got his ignorant butt kicked again.


Try refuting ANYTHING I said in my post.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1984?
What, no cave paintings?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20853889
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11822445
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5 ...
http://the_brain.bwh.harvard.e du/pubs/Alleyne_Bioinformatics 2008_AOP.pdf
----------
Chemistry IS order. It is not that it can create it, it is that chemistry is an explication of order at and above the atomic level.
So, refutation by definition.
If you tried to understand things before you went shooting off you might not get embarrassed quite so often.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125660 Mar 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I completely disagree
This constant barrage of evo-dating and long ages is over
EVERYTHING in dino-layers is similarly not millions of years old
Give it up now Chimney
Just like SZ, you are blithely playing your fiddle while Rome burns

i refuted this several posts back.

creotards cling to anything they think they can warp to fit their world view.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125661 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Mike, Immunohistochemistry is used thousands of times every day to document antigen-specific substances within cell nuclei, membranes and various organelles. Treatment protocols for life-threatening illnesses rely heavily on the specificity and reproducibility of IHC.
If you still believe that T.Rex is 67 million years old, you need to come up with a plausible explanation as to how DNA could survive as an intact molecule for that long. Experimental science contradicts that contention. What special pleading arguments are you going to fabricate?

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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125662 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The DNA testing was performed of large bones on the moa, a species that stood 12 feet in height. Some of the bones were femurs. Nice try at special pleading.

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125663 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you fail to realize that radiometric dating as it relates to fossils has always been a huge house of cards. It is not founded on solid physics, but layers upon layers of unprovable assumptions.

This is false. radiometric dating has been shown to be exceptionally accurate in both theory and practice. This has been proven over and over. The normal error rate is about 3%. That decreases with multiple measures, obviously.


However, you need to come up with a plausible explanation as to how DNA can survive for 67 million years, that is also compatible with your special pleading theories of "mini-castrophies" of fossilization. DNA does not last indefinitely, regardless of whatever conditions you imagine to have existed to allow your religion to remain intact.

Again, no actual DNA has survived.

And again, no one knows how long DNA can survive in an airless, waterless, microbe free environment.

Do you know what DNA IS?

IF you could get a pile of nothing but DNA do you know what it would be? No air, no water, no cell,.....

It would be a ROCK! It would NOT be biochemically active in absence of those factors.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125664 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?

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?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125665 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Kong
Bone must be decalcified with acid so that it can be cut and examined under a microscope.

Which is also done with fossils.....

Look up fossil decalcification.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125666 Mar 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
They weren't stating that birds and dinosaurs are related on DNA evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125667 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The T.Rex bones were not completely fossilized, Kong. Osteocytes, RBC's and collagen were visible. If it had been petrified, no one would have been able to make histologic sections in the first place.

BING BING BING BING BING!

HEY! HTS got something RIGHT! Will miracles never cease!?

Considering his long history of nearly always being wrong I am just going to figure this as his broken-clock-moment for the day.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125668 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.
Yu didn't do your homework Dogen.
The moa article said that no DNA immunoreactivity would be detectable after 1.5 million years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125669 Mar 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence do you have that DNA can survive intact indefinitely?
You have none.
Tissue begins deteriorating immediately upon death through autolysis. Biologic tissues are embedded in paraffin, fixed in formalin and stored in climate-controlled storage units to assure minimal deterioration over years to decades. However, soft tissue does not remain intact indefinitely. No study has been performed documenting that DNA can survive millions of years, even by extrapolation.

And none has.

However, autolysis does not occur in a dehydrate environment.

The only remaining mechanism for DNA denigration is radiation.

“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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min replaytime 131,739
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 426
How would creationists explain... 2 hr The Dude 284
Science News (Sep '13) 2 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 4 hr The Dude 87
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr The Dude 13,613
Genetic entropy Mon Chimney1 157