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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#165983 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Regurgitation of dogma is not science.
Yes so why do you do it?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165984 Feb 13, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting post, inasmuch as I'm running straight at the data, highlighting the truth about the data, I think you are already familiar with the data, and I showed I understand the data more so than your side has yet demonstrated.
In context, yours is the kind of post that might be expected to spring from desperation.

All lies. You are trying to twist the data and are obscuring the truth about the data.

This is further confirmation that you are a known and committed liar.

You have never understood the data.

Remember it is the SAME people here watching your posts. Who do you think you are lying too?

We KNOW you. This strategy might work if we didn't know you.

But we do.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165985 Feb 13, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The age of a crystal is reset when it melts and re-crystalizes. That is why the dates for ignoeous rocks are for the most recent solidification. The resetting is due to the chemical affinities of the atoms making up the crystal. For example, when a rock with potassium crystalizes, the gasseous argon escapes, resetting the potassium-argon clock.
So, no, the dates are NOT of older material. They are dates of events in the history of the Earth.

Thanks for this tidbit. I knew that melting and re-crystalization reset the clock, but I never questioned why. This is good to know.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#165986 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The link you posted did not answer my question.
I'm well aware of the dogmas of Darwinism.
How is decomposition prevented if fossilization requires millions of years to complete?
If you are talking about the soft tissues recovered from the bones Mary and others have been able to retrieve. There is a few papers that make hypothesis how this happens.
There is two major criteria that contribute to this. One is that it is something that is avian that lends to it. The other is that the tissue was tightly wound nerve fibers and only the inner and most tightly wound tissues survived. But the truth hasn't been carved in stone so we are still investigating how it happens. If you want to know what Mary's team wrote about it ..look it up.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165987 Feb 13, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So how bad did the entire area smell, where Mary Schweitzers fossil was.

It didn't smell. At least no smell was coming from the fossils.

The smell occurred during examination and testing of the "soft tissue" when they rehydrated it.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> Why isn't science coming up with more discoveries from that area? Why doesn't science give the people an update?

A number of papers have been written about dino soft tissue so I am not sure what you mean. If you want updates there are some science web sites that specialize in exactly that.
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> And when so much in science is slanted in the name of evolution do you think the rest of science won't do the same in their fields? In other words which side of the bread is buttered for you? Never mind the people you are supposed to serve.

Other fields discover what they discover. They don't care what a different field wants them to find.

When I wrote my masters thesis I did not ask, "gee, I wonder who won't like this, or will this hurt evolution" or anything like that. Frankly the driver of science is COMPITITION especially in highly visible fields.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#165988 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If the rock was in liquid form at the time the insect died, the liquid rock would have melted the insect instantly.
Pompeii, Herculaneum, are both examples of how what you just wrote is incorrect.
The rock can be ash at the time of burial.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165989 Feb 13, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And do you also agree on the short timeframe required for fossilization?

I did not know this was an issue that was seriously being debated anymore.

How long it takes a fossil to form depends on the circumstances it is being formed under. Under ideal conditions you can create a fossil in maybe 10 years or less.

Most fossils take longer. Usually much longer.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165990 Feb 13, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us polymath how long does potassium keep offgassing?
Do you know where that question leads?

"offgassing"?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#165991 Feb 13, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Because more recent c14 can be found from any organic material that may have come in contact with the bone. Like from insects or even bacteria that have found their way to the bone. You have to make sure that it is really from the most protected oldest sample of c14. When you have material around the bone, and an impression of the bone in the material is obvious, then dating the material would be the most accurate measurement of the age of the bone.
Dating the material gives a date for the material, not necessarily the bone. Also, do you think that only C-14 dating has opportunities for error?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165992 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You cannot make any assumptions as to when the earth was "created" by radiometric dating.

No, you cant make any assumptions but you can TEST very old rocks and OBSERVE the results of the test giving their age.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You cannot assume what the state of matter was at time of creation.

At the time of the Big Bang it was not a state of matter yet. The first state of matter was Plasma.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> How do you know that an intelligent being didn't take pre-existing matter and create a world? If he did, why do you presume to know what the state of that matter was?

Not a literate enough question to provide a meaningful response. Sorry.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165993 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You completely miss the point.
I'm talking about a living thing that is quickly fossilized through catastrophic burial.
You have failed to logically explain why radiometrically dating rocks within the mud would have any bearing on the timeframe of fossilization.

It wouldn't, but fossils are formed in vivo in the circumstances they are deposited. Fossils CAN be moved by either natural or unnatural processes so it is important that the situation it is deposited in be closely examined.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If an animal were suddenly buried in mudslide today, and it became rapidly fossilized... How would dating the associated rocks provide an indication as to when the animal died?

Why would we date the associate rocks. Those are inclusions are are usually very easy to identify.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you radiometrically dated igneous rocks that are lying around now, how old would they be?

They would be the age since they solidified.
One way or another

United States

#165994 Feb 13, 2014
If you bring no New thinking to the world or this board then you obviously don't understand how the mind works and you don't understand how it will relate to everything else.

Everything depends on everything else just as everyone depends on everyone else. EDEE

New inspiration comes from many different directions and many other sciences.

If your parents did not teach you how to think for yourself the school systems surely won't. Were your parents taught to think for themselves by their parents?

Who taught them to think for themselves?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#165995 Feb 13, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If an insect is found incased inside of a rock, it would have gotten there before the rock had solidified. So the insect would have to be approximately the same age as the rock.
How much younger might the rock be than the material which forms it?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165996 Feb 13, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Dating the material gives a date for the material, not necessarily the bone. Also, do you think that only C-14 dating has opportunities for error?

All measurements are subject to error. C-14 has more chance since it is easily contaminated by any biological material.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165997 Feb 13, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What about when there is no strata above, as in the case of the Montana Hell Creek Formation finds? BTW, the Hell Creek Formation isn't igneous.
This is not about the age of the Earth. It's about the age of critters' remains found in the Earth.

Not sure what your point is. Science can only date what it has. If it cannot date the artifact directly using absolute dating methods then it goes to the next best source... dating associated strata. If it can only get one layer then it can only give an approximate date for the artifact.

But with over 40 dating methods available there is usually a way to get a reasonably good date if the fossil is undisturbed. Geologist, paleontologists and archeologists have plenty of resources for dating.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165998 Feb 13, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
How much younger might the rock be than the material which forms it?

Not much, fossilization is all about lithification/petrification If it just sits there it will decay, be devoured, eroded.....

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#165999 Feb 13, 2014
One way or another wrote:
If you bring no New thinking to the world or this board then you obviously don't understand how the mind works and you don't understand how it will relate to everything else.
Everything depends on everything else just as everyone depends on everyone else. EDEE
New inspiration comes from many different directions and many other sciences.
If your parents did not teach you how to think for yourself the school systems surely won't. Were your parents taught to think for themselves by their parents?
Who taught them to think for themselves?

Science is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.-Thomas A. Edison

Reiterated by Albert Einstein.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#166000 Feb 13, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Regurgitation of dogma is not science.

WOW!!!

Kettle calls pot black. Story at 11.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#166001 Feb 13, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no short time frame for fossilization to occur naturally, but there is evidence in rare instances it can happen quickly. So I agree it is possible, however it is unlikely.
Urb is talking about Ken Ham's fossilized hat, of course. He seems to think that a felt matrix being impregnated with calcium is precisely analogous to 40,000 YO t. rex bones. <shrug> Consider the source.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#166002 Feb 13, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea.
But it is a valid test to run on a dinosaur strata. If it returns a result of less than 100,000 years (roughly the lower limit of its range) then C-14 testing might be considered warranted.
The answer is that it takes no bone to run the potassium-argon test on bone because that test isn't run on bone.

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) 9 min Regolith Based Li... 83,153
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 36 min marksman11 164,693
Tennepithecus ate a pescatarian diet. 12 hr Science 1
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 12 hr Eagle 12 - 135
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Dogen 2,575
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 hr Dogen 223,009
Evolution is boring as Hell 17 hr Eagle 12 - 11
More from around the web