Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

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.”

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116749 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Dr Schweitzer Dino DNA
Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community, however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior to publication--and thus be effectively censored from public access.
Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,1 dinosaur DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research) continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.
Dino DNA
An article published in Science in 1993 illustrates how and why dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored. "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype" by Virginia Morell stated that "several groups are racing to get the first DNA out of dinosaur bones, but other researchers say their efforts are taking attention away from the real scientific value of ancient DNA."
This article referenced then-recent findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:
Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician:'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"2
1st page

Not a real research paper. It is just an ICR article. It is filled with mistakes/dishonesty.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116750 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
http://www.icr.org/article/din osaur-dna-research-tale-waggin g/
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?

This article is so bad it could pass for satire.

Which lies do you want picked apart first?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116751 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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.”

The above proves that creationists will say anything and do so with flair and drama instead of facts.

There was no DNA in the samples. There were not even complete proteins. You cannot sequence DNA that is that fragmented.

Look it up yourself.
One way or another

United States

#116752 Feb 11, 2013
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.

* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116753 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
<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
<quoted text>
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... ).
With the starting premise of magic poofing, all science would be irrelevant.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116754 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
There was no DNA.
Yes, clearly there is.
The Dude wrote:
Um, no. In fact that's quite the opposite to what I was saying.
Dodge-A-Rama!

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116755 Feb 11, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
With the starting premise of magic poofing, all science would be irrelevant.
With the starting premise of "nothing + nobody = everything", all science would be irrelevant.
One way or another

United States

#116756 Feb 11, 2013
Something else then?

Her lab was still stacked with unpacked cartons when she opened the cardboard box from the T. rex dig and pulled out the biggest fragment. Looking at it with the eyes of a biologist, she immediately saw it was more than a fossil. Time and history began to unwind. "Oh, my gosh," she said to her laboratory assistant, Jennifer Wittmeyer. "It's a girl. And it's pregnant."
What Schweitzer saw was medullary bone, a type of tissue that grows inside the long bones of female birds. Medullary bone is produced during ovulation as a way of storing the calcium needed for egg production; then it disappears. "I looked at it under the dissecting scope," Schweitzer says. "There was nothing else it could be." The medullary bone even contained gaps and mazelike fiber patterns resembling those of modern birds.
Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. "Everything we've ever tried to do has been an utter guess," Schweitzer says. For instance, researchers had tried to distinguish a male from a female based on the shape of a creature's body or the size of its head crest. Now they had a way to link gender with morphology and, drawing on parallels with living animals, even with behavior.
The second surprise hit in January 2004. While Schweitzer was attending a departmental taco party, Wittmeyer raced breathlessly into the room. "You aren't going to believe what happened," the lab assistant sputtered.
Wittmeyer had been pulling the late shift, analyzing pieces from the T. rex limb. She had just soaked a fragment of medullary bone in dilute acid to remove some calcium phosphate. This was an unusual procedure to carry out in a dinosaur lab. Scientists typically assume that a fossilized dinosaur consists of rock that would entirely dissolve in acid, but Schweitzer wanted to get a closer look at the fossil's fine structure and compare it with that of modern birds. That night Wittmeyer marveled at a small section of decalcified thighbone: "When you wiggled it, it kind of floated in the breeze."
Schweitzer and Wittmeyer pondered the meaning of the stretchy sample, feeling mystified and ecstatic. The remains seemed like soft tissue—specifically matrix, the organic part of bone, which consists primarily of collagen. Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. "Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade," Schweitzer says. "If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?"
Next Schweitzer examined a piece of the dinosaur's cortical bone. "We stuck the bone in the same kind of solution," she says. "The bone mineral dissolved away, and it left these transparent blood vessels. I took one look, and I just said:'Uh-uh. This isn't happening. This is just not happening.' " She started applying the same treatment to bone fragments from another dinosaur that she had acquired for her dissertation. "Sure enough," she says, "vessels all over the place."
Less than a month later, while Schweitzer was still collecting data on the soft tissue, came a third score. Wittmeyer walked into the lab looking anxious. "I think maybe some of our stuff's gotten contaminated, because I see these things floating around, and they look like bugs," she said. Worried that she would lose her dinosaur blood vessels before she could publish an article about them, Schweitzer rushed to rescue the sample. What she found startled her. Through the microscope she could see what looked like perfectly formed osteocytes, the cells inside bone.
The past was roaring to life.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116757 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.
* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
That's like saying "Mr. Smith is the director of aeronautics at the "Lead Blimp Association".

ICR is a joke.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116758 Feb 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
One sided Evo morons can't handle the truth.
* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.

Sorry you are uninterested in the true. The is not a peer review journal. It is just a creationist rag. You may notice, however, that it is an opinion piece and filled with logical fallacies and misinformation. No actual research was done (as is typical of creationists).

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
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 42 min positronium 6,548
How to Recover Deleted Voice Memos from iPhone... (Mar '13) 2 hr MuzikJunkie 16
How can biometrics enhance the transportation a... 3 hr iritechinc 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 19,739
News Convert MKV to MP4 for Play HD MKV on PS3, Xbox... (Jan '11) 3 hr coco 8
Transfer Music/Songs from iPhone to Android pho... (Apr '13) 3 hr CatherineNarine 29
News Mars has nitrogen, key to life: NASA 10 hr SpaceBlues 5
More from around the web