Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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
One way or another

United States

#116726 Feb 10, 2013
When a grown up is debating someone and anyone else tries to make excuses or defend them, an adult chases them away, exclaiming that they can defend themselves. Children are grateful for the help, because they know they are too stupid to defend themselves.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116727 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is:
Observable (creationism isn't)
Well, creation is well observed
...but I take your point
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Testable (creationism isn't)
I think it is..
Not actually creating, but being able to test 'various kinds' reproducing as Genesis states God had ordained
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes predictions (creationism doesn't)
Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism

And that is exactly what is observed
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is falsifiable.(creationism isn't)
Here you are right

But neither is evolution

The equivocation used by evolutionists
For example, your high priest Dawkins..

"...when there is systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution".

Similar definitions include 'evolution = "change in gene freqeuncy with time"

Or "descent with modification"

An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the "pretentiously" named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to pushing evolution....

...cited a teacher approvingly whose student after being told the definition of evolution, said, "Of course species change with time! You mean that's evolution?"

That's a caricature of evolution

Things changing...
Of course they change...

We could all be evolutionists if that's all it takes..

We could pack up and go home

How do you falsify that definition?
You can't

What is evolution?(Kerkut)

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.

On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

-—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116728 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Conforms to the principle of parsimony.(creationism doesn't)
Russell Griggs talks about the application of 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum’ to the creation/evolution debate:

"Is Occam’s Razor valid when it comes to discussing the supernatural? Well, atheists seem to think so. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says:‘atheists often apply Occam’s razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.’5

And in his bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, discussing the uncertainty principle, writes:

Stephen Hawking's book
‘We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much use to us ordinary mortals. It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as Occam’s razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.’6

However, by invoking Occam’s Razor, sceptics make a rod for their own backs for, as we shall see, once the validity of Occam’s Razor is admitted and this criterion is applied to aspects of the creation/evolution debate, the results are clearly on the side of creation and against evolution.

He goes on to explain why
http://creation.com/occams-razor-and-creation...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is self correcting (creationism isn't)
That is all evolutionary 'science' has done
Is correct itself

There is little or no consensus in the field of evolutionary 'science' at any given time

Propaganda, bluster and carrying on's


When the starting and central premise is erroneous, continual corrections are the name of the game

But guess what?

Evidence and 'facts' change constantly but the fixed belief that evolution is true NEVER changes

Mary Schweitzer is a case in point
Seeing the 'unbelievable' soft tissues including collagenous tissues and red blood cells... in dino bones

But the dogmatic central paradigm that these were 65 million years old and therefore COULD NOT be present

She tested her findings 17 times to make sure

I thought science was unbiased?

No starting biases??

Not true when 'evolution' is in town

Its the ONLY game in town

I don't know what field of science you are most familiar with, but the forensics type of 'science' used in evolution eg paleontology, phylogenetics, biological anthropology...is forever in a state of self correction...

This is precisely what Dr Lines talks and writes about

And
This one is great for Chimney...if he --or she-- is still around

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-s...

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116730 Feb 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science Process - from data (observation) to hypothesis to testing to theory
If that were true in evolutionary circles, evolution would have been abandoned long ago

Take “evolutionary stasis” for example
Evolution is change—even as per your own definition
Stasis is “no change”
So how is “evolutionary stasis” evolution?

Dr Batten has written:

"Furthermore, some evolutionists have admitted that living fossils (‘stasis’) are a big problem for evolution.2 They have no explanation. This is not about suggesting that something has to go extinct if something evolves from it; that is not the point. The point is the lack of change, which is a huge problem for evolution, which is about vast changes. As high-profile evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge admitted,“the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”3

http://creation.com/dodging-living-fossils

http://creation.com/why-young-age-creationism...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism process - starts with belief then attempts to rationalize the data.
That is precisely what evolution is about
Start with “evolution or BUST” and FORCE every result to fit that ‘fact’
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Christianity has shunned science from the start. Early scientists were lucky if they did not get burned at the stake.
Wrong

Have you read much about the history of science?

I quote, a likely hostile witness, Professor Harrison, who has published on the ABC website an article, about this same subject and says at the very end:

“Those who have magnified more recent controversies about the relations of science and religion, and who have projected them back into historical time, simply perpetuate a historical myth. The myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion is one to which no historian of science would subscribe.”

--Harrison, P,“Christianity and the rise of western science”, ABC Religion and Ethics, 8 May 2012

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/...

Naturally no debate about this matter is complete without
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not true. Science was very strong in early Islamic culture.
Er, no
More propaganda...

Here I refer to your high priest again
He doesn’t agree with you

But he has been known to be quite wrong about far more important issues....so it’s up to you if you want to see this

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/596...

However, I very much would like you to read this ....if you choose to, of course

It may help correct your many misconceptions about science and Islam

http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As Dr Sarafti gave up science for a cush little job were he did not have to produce science it is hard to take his musings seriously, especially since they are rife with inaccuracies.


Dr Sarfati is known to be quite meticulous in his research and has a vast intellect

He would be delighted to receive any feedback you may have in regards to his “inaccuracies” and I would be delighted to pass them on to him, as contrary to your unsupported claims, self-correction, like DNA polymerase, is an integral part of what creationists at CMI do

Dr Sarfati gave up secular work to serve God, and accepted a huge drop in salary

He most certainly has not “given up science” as you suppose, he is immersed in ‘science’ every day

http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-sarfati
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116731 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
Well, creation is well observed
Funny, I certainly don't recall any scientific information supporting the death of every single living thing in the entire universe rescued by magical poofing.
Russell wrote:
Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism
Ah, well done. You just openly admitted your only support for creationism rests solely on negative, anti-evolution arguments rather than positive objectively verifiable scientific evidence.

Of course when your position is one of invisible Jewish magic evidence is utterly superfluous.
Russell wrote:
Here you are right
Of course he is. Can't falsify it when you can just use magic to save it.
Russell wrote:
But neither is evolution
Of course it's falsifiable. Fossilized re-Cambrian lepi? Dog giving birth to a cat? Human born with the genome of a cactus? Centaur fossil? Pegasus? Pigasus? One confirmed case of cow created by magical poofing? Evolution falsified.
Russell wrote:
That's a caricature of evolution
Things changing...
Of course they change...
We could all be evolutionists if that's all it takes..
We could pack up and go home
Yes well I DID tell you that MONTHS ago when I pointed out you could never win using your position. Yes, life changes. Fact. Hence why YECers have to pretend the Earth is MUCH younger than what it really is so they can pretend evolution can't happen. Because they know as well as us that if changes continue to accumulate we WILL end up with a very different animal.
Russell wrote:
How do you falsify that definition?
You don't falsify definitions. Definitions are arbitrary. Hence why someone chose "apple" as a definition of a particular fruit and "car" as a definition of a particular type of vehicle. Instead you falsify hypotheses. And that would be the one about common ancestry. You know, that working falsifiable one which you're simply unable to falsify, and just admitted it. Especially when it's highly supported by science:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

So yeah.

You may as well go home.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116732 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Gosh, the Evo morons want peer reviewed BS for money. Now you should know better. You know evolutionists can't stand on their own two feet and argue for themselves, just look what they do here, learning from the fully corrupt scientists for money.
Now be nice, they were taught to believe whatever BS they are given. You know they can't think for themselves.

Projection
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116733 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
Evidence and 'facts' change constantly but the fixed belief that evolution is true NEVER changes
Mary Schweitzer is a case in point
Seeing the 'unbelievable' soft tissues including collagenous tissues and red blood cells... in dino bones
But the dogmatic central paradigm that these were 65 million years old and therefore COULD NOT be present
Still pushing that old fundie lie, eh? Even after we debunked it oh so many months ago.

Here's your problem bubba - The creationist arguments against it have NOTHING to do with evolution. The beef is that the sample cannot be that old because organic substances don't last that long. THEREFORE evolution "can't" have happened because the Earth is "too young".

However this addresses NOTHING about the hypothesis of common ancestry. Therefore if we take the fundie claim at face value that the Earth is young because of this discovery, evolution would STILL be valid because it's NOT the case for common ancestry that would have been falsified.

And as someone who thinks the Earth is young therefore radioactive decay of ALL known elemental compounds is somehow accelerated to such EXTREME levels that universal temperatures would be a problem for living things, but somehow we're all still here to talk about it... then you should have NO problem whatsoever with accepting evolution being accelerated to such extreme levels where cancer would be a problem for all living things and would usually wipe out all life too.

But somehow we're still here to talk about it.

That IS exactly what the whole Garden of Eden and Noah scenarios REQUIRE after all. It's just that fundies are too dumb to understand the consequences of their own position.

In the case of the T-Rex collagen sample it is hypothesized that certain compounds can last longer than originally expected. This is helped by the fact that the sample was dried out and hermetically sealed in solid rock protected from the elements.

The scientific community have come to the general conclusion that this is a far more reasonable explanation than killing off all life in the universe in multiple different ways and having everything fixed by magical poofing from an invisible Jewish wizard.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116734 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, creation is well observed
...but I take your point
<quoted text>
I think it is..
Not actually creating, but being able to test 'various kinds' reproducing as Genesis states God had ordained

I think that is one of creationism biggest failures.
What is found is a nested hierarchy and that all species are related. Exactly what was predicted by evolution.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism
And that is exactly what is observed

"complexity" is a word with only relative meaning (therefore no meaning in a scientific sense). "Gradualism" is not only possible, but mechanisms have been discovered for this process. Problem is that researchers are tracking a 3.8 billion year cold case.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> The equivocation used by evolutionists
For example, your high priest Dawkins..

When did Dawkins get promoted above the rank of biased loudmouth?
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> "...when there is systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution".
Similar definitions include 'evolution = "change in gene freqeuncy with time"
Or "descent with modification"

I have a feeling that there is more context than what you are providing. All of the above are accurate, with various levels of technicality.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the "pretentiously" named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to pushing evolution....
...cited a teacher approvingly whose student after being told the definition of evolution, said, "Of course species change with time! You mean that's evolution?"

That IS evolution. Showing even a child can understand and see evolution.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>How do you falsify that definition?
You can't

Simplistic definitions are not the scientific definition. But evolution is easy to falsify, but nothing discovered so far can falsify it.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> -—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).

Yes, this IS VERY old research and is based on what was known way back when.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116735 Feb 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
Dr Sarfati is known to be quite meticulous in his research and has a vast intellect
He gave up research in favour of reality-denying young Earth religious apologetics. His "vast intellect" is promoted mainly, well, by him.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116736 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Still pushing that old fundie lie, eh? Even after we debunked it oh so many months ago.
Here's your problem bubba - The creationist arguments against it have NOTHING to do with evolution. The beef is that the sample cannot be that old because organic substances don't last that long. THEREFORE evolution "can't" have happened because the Earth is "too young".
However this addresses NOTHING about the hypothesis of common ancestry. Therefore if we take the fundie claim at face value that the Earth is young because of this discovery, evolution would STILL be valid because it's NOT the case for common ancestry that would have been falsified.
And as someone who thinks the Earth is young therefore radioactive decay of ALL known elemental compounds is somehow accelerated to such EXTREME levels that universal temperatures would be a problem for living things, but somehow we're all still here to talk about it... then you should have NO problem whatsoever with accepting evolution being accelerated to such extreme levels where cancer would be a problem for all living things and would usually wipe out all life too.
But somehow we're still here to talk about it.
That IS exactly what the whole Garden of Eden and Noah scenarios REQUIRE after all. It's just that fundies are too dumb to understand the consequences of their own position.
In the case of the T-Rex collagen sample it is hypothesized that certain compounds can last longer than originally expected. This is helped by the fact that the sample was dried out and hermetically sealed in solid rock protected from the elements.
The scientific community have come to the general conclusion that this is a far more reasonable explanation than killing off all life in the universe in multiple different ways and having everything fixed by magical poofing from an invisible Jewish wizard.
Evolution as a science has been about as reliable as the science of predicting the weather.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116737 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution as a science has been about as reliable as the science of predicting the weather.
Uhuh, that's why you ain't refuted it yet. I just give you another chance, and even gave you a number of potential falsifications on a plate. What gives? That'd be Urban Clownboy. Evolution still stands.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116738 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Still pushing that old fundie lie, eh? Even after we debunked it oh so many months ago.
Here's your problem bubba - The creationist arguments against it have NOTHING to do with evolution. The beef is that the sample cannot be that old because organic substances don't last that long. THEREFORE evolution "can't" have happened because the Earth is "too young".
However this addresses NOTHING about the hypothesis of common ancestry. Therefore if we take the fundie claim at face value that the Earth is young because of this discovery, evolution would STILL be valid because it's NOT the case for common ancestry that would have been falsified.
Yes, Dr. Schweitzer dug up some smelly, stinking, rotting dino flesh (yes, they reported smelling it) including fresh bone and blood cells with DNA inside the nucleus right where it's supposed to be.(Also recall that another researcher determined the half-life of DNA to be some 520 years max.)

So what you're saying here is that this particular species of dino is not a distant evolutionary ancestor from eons ago of anything but rather a surviving species that lived recently? So you are going to change T-rex from becoming extinct at the end of mesozoic to cenozoic?

I'd really enjoy seeing that!

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116739 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhuh, that's why you ain't refuted it yet. I just give you another chance, and even gave you a number of potential falsifications on a plate. What gives? That'd be Urban Clownboy. Evolution still stands.
It only stands (as a joke) due to its extreme plasticity. If it were actually held to the standards of the scientific method it would fail easily.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116740 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution as a science has been about as reliable as the science of predicting the weather.

High praise coming from a former meteorologist.

But actually evolution has a record that most sciences would envy.

http://answersinscience.org/evo_science.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.h...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fac...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116741 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Dr. Schweitzer dug up some smelly, stinking, rotting dino flesh (yes, they reported smelling it) including fresh bone and blood cells with DNA inside the nucleus right where it's supposed to be.(Also recall that another researcher determined the half-life of DNA to be some 520 years max.)
So what you're saying here is that this particular species of dino is not a distant evolutionary ancestor from eons ago of anything but rather a surviving species that lived recently? So you are going to change T-rex from becoming extinct at the end of mesozoic to cenozoic?
I'd really enjoy seeing that!

No one has determined how long biological material can last in a dehydrated, anaerobic, sterile, hermetically sealed environment. Under such conditions it could probably last nearly forever.

DNA half life measured under conditions of exposure are not comparable without testing. In the mean time other researchers have found seeds that are still viable even after 30,000 years. They germinated and show no signs of genetic defects due to age.

Dinosaurs have been proved to have lived more than 65 MILLION years ago based on numerous tests by a plethora of different researchers, from different fields, from different countries, from different religious backgrounds.....

I bet you can't argue with this!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116742 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It only stands (as a joke) due to its extreme plasticity. If it were actually held to the standards of the scientific method it would fail easily.

It is held to those standards every day.

I bet you can't even list the standards of the scientific method without looking them up!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116743 Feb 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Dr. Schweitzer dug up some smelly, stinking, rotting dino flesh (yes, they reported smelling it) including fresh bone and blood cells with DNA inside the nucleus right where it's supposed to be.(Also recall that another researcher determined the half-life of DNA to be some 520 years max.)
There was no DNA. That hasn't stopped fundies like you lying about that though.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So what you're saying here is that this particular species of dino is not a distant evolutionary ancestor from eons ago of anything but rather a surviving species that lived recently? So you are going to change T-rex from becoming extinct at the end of mesozoic to cenozoic?
I'd really enjoy seeing that!
Um, no. In fact that's quite the opposite to what I was saying. Either your attempting your usual lame creo subterfuge or you really just didn't have a clue what I just said. Considering the stupidity of the YEC position, either is equally possible.
One way or another

United States

#116746 Feb 11, 2013
3rd page

Coerced Spoliation of Evidence

This purposeful pattern of coerced concealment of the nonconforming DNA data from unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled "an anomaly" on the chart) involves what courtroom lawyers and judges call "chilling" coercion and "spoliation of evidence"--inducing the concealment (and eventual destruction) of embarrassing information in order to prevent one's opponent from using it at trial.

Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions the spoliators' motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence suggests that the spoliators' argument or theory would be weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of presumptive inference in law courts. In other words, if someone hides evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.6

A kindred rule to the foregoing…is that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the cause of the spoliator.…The deliberate destruction of evidence gives rise to the presumption that the matter destroyed is not favorable to the spoliator.7

This shows that the civil law courts understand the importance of evidence spoliation--it points to a willingness to conceal or otherwise suppress truth in order to advance a specific cause. The name Arthur Andersen comes to mind, as this accounting firm's shredding of Enron documents hindered SEC investigators.8

Follow the Procedure, or Else

In suppressed dinosaur DNA research--which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed, dinosaur soft tissue discoveries--the same issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why? Because today's dinosaur DNA controversy in particular, and today's dinosaur "connective tissue" controversy in general, directly puts at issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live millions of years ago, or in much more recent history on an earth inhabited by humans--descendants of Adam and Eve?9

How will anyone really know what dinosaur DNA sequences look like until uncensored data from dinosaur bones are published for public scrutiny? And how will such data be published at all if "embarrassing" research results are routinely discarded as anomalous, simply because they didn't "look like chicken"? One way to acquire more reliable data in this case would be to repeat the DNA research across multiple labs, until consistent results emerge.
One way or another

United States

#116747 Feb 11, 2013
http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-dna-resea...

In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.

These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).

Interestingly, Schweitzer has never published any of her purported DNA research on dinosaur tissue, although she has published on tissue analyses and, recently, data on protein sequence. While the tissue analyses reported over the past decade are nearly impossible to dispute, this recently published dinosaur protein sequence from a T. rex came under extreme criticism and the data were highly questioned by peers as having been manipulated to produce close similarities with chicken and ostrich protein.11 Was this done as per the "paleontological theory and protocol" described in 1993?

Conclusion

The gatekeeping approach to ancient DNA research established as a protocol in 1993 is a product of dogmatic evolutionary theory. The 1994 results put the dogma to the test, with the result that:

Ancient DNA, known to be unstable, was extracted from "80 million-year-old" bone.
The sequence, though it showed evidence of decay, was no more bird-like than it was mammal-like.
The coerced suppression of the results by the evolutionary scientific community has dissuaded anyone else from publishing dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship "chills" empirical research, which prevents the public reporting of observable DNA sequences in order to insulate the larger story of particles-to-people evolution from cross-examination.

Where are the real scientists in dinosaur DNA research who refuse to kowtow to evolution's gatekeepers?
One way or another

United States

#116748 Feb 11, 2013
The above proves how corrupt science has become.

former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Brian_G 14,670
Best Craigslist Alternatives (Apr '14) 2 hr ssc portal 3
The law makes us hate them 2 hr One way or another 5
Defending net neutrality is a fight for human r... 3 hr jeffry 2
SpaceX Reveals Stunning Video Showing Its Total... 3 hr jeffry 1
Researchers to test MS patients with type of st... 6 hr MS trial 1
Final Ship Arrives in Erie for Winter Repairs 7 hr Gray 1
More from around the web