Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#126423 Apr 5, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Unlike other people on this forum, I am not making any claims. My thoughts and beliefs are engraved in stone like the 10 commandments and will never change, I never doubt and neither does my Jewish psychiatrist of 36 years, we are a team. He knows me better than I know myself and he was the first convert. "Zion shall be redeemed with judgment and her converts with righteousness" Is. 1:27 "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" Is. 6:10. The first day of the Lord, VWD Day should come by the end of 2014. It's been 30 years.
Oh looky, a chimney Poe. What a waste of time. WTF, life is short chimney, quit wasting it on parody.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#126424 Apr 5, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>How so?
Why are you asking that bytch? Her opinion of you means less than nothing.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#126425 Apr 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You ranted about my citing nano no mates illnesses yet you happily provide links and comment on someone elseís illness
So now you're insulting me behind my back on other threads. That's not much of a surprise considering what a stupid, cowardly, fkg liar you are.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#126426 Apr 5, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I was not attempting to use the illness as an insult. The person claimed to see and talk to god for a certain period of time so I posted a link to an alternative (temporary) illness as that proposed by the other commenter. I also posted a link describing how those whose psychosis is grounded in religion are harder to cure than those whose are not. No attempt at insult just sharing information.
Unlike Christine's blatant hostility.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#126427 Apr 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because macroevolution never happened? And "Cro Magnon" is just a distant relative of mine?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/...

Bats (Chiroptera) represent one of the largest and most diverse radiations of mammals, accounting for one-fifth of extant species1. Although recent studies unambiguously support bat monophyly2, 3, 4 and consensus is rapidly emerging about evolutionary relationships among extant lineages5, 6, 7, 8, the fossil record of bats extends over 50 million years, and early evolution of the group remains poorly understood.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n71...

Poorly understood does not mean evolution did not happen.
In fact in light of what is known , clearly the species is far older than the samples we know of.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#126428 Apr 5, 2013
susanblange wrote:
If there is no heaven then there is no God. The bible acknowledges heaven but if you're a Christian you can doubt. How do you explain near death experience and if there is no heaven, then Jesus is dead and there is no God. How can you believe in the bible and not believe in heaven and hell?
You actually believe that stuff??
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126429 Apr 5, 2013
Invertebrate fossils found are in the hundreds of millions and some 500,000 fish fossils have been found; however, no transitional forms - not even one example - has ever been found between vertebrates and invertebrates. So how could vertebrate evolution be any mystery? Isn't this evidence clear enough? What if 10 years from now we find another 100,000 fish fossils and another million invertebrate fossils, and there still is no transitional forms between the two groups? Would this be enough to change anyone's mind?

Fish are proposed to have evolved from invertebrates; however, we have millions of elasmobranchs, actinistains, holocephalians, dipnoans, heterostracans, thelodontids, climatiformes, acanthodiformes, rhenanids, pyyctodontids, arthrodires, antiarchs, paleonisciformes, porolepiformes, anapsids, osteostracans, and osteolepiformes; and yet, not a single solitary common ancestor fish of any of them has ever been found. Hundreds of millions to none!

Are the ancestors of each fish group really missing? Every major group of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed without any trace of ancestor for any of them. Without prejudice, and speaking as objectively as possible, doesn't this suggest that the fossil evidence says macroevolution never happened?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126430 Apr 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill you donít know anything about
What does this prove?
It proves that bats have not evolved much in recent (geological) times, neither have many other animals. This proves that as far as their fossils are concerned that they have evolved enough to fit the niche into which they fit. Now given those fossil remains how do you know what frequency range of sound these ancestral bats were attuned to? Do you know if their location ability has evolved during the last 50 million years? Do you know if the tolerance to different food sources has evolved over the last 50 million years? You donít know so you point is what?
BTY What are these predicted evolutionary ancestors you cite? It is predated that animals that perfectly fit their environmental niche have no need to evolve.
I know there aren't any predicted common ancestors of bats in the fossil record.

I know the fossil record of bats is abundant with over 1,000 specimens, but even with all that, there is nothing to show the formation of a bat's wing membrane over time or the slow elongation of the fingers and that all - yes, everyone of them ever found so far - are fully developed, capable of flying and looking similar to bats today. The oldest bat fossil in Jura Museum in Germany "dated" (notice the quotation marks) some 50 MYA could have been from today's bats.

This is just facts with no opinion. Now here's my interpretation of these facts, i.e., my humble opinion: Macroevolution never happened.

I want to explore the fossil record. I have discussed bats and invertebrates and fish. What about Sea Lions? Flying Reptiles? Dinosaurs? Whales? Birds? Plants? Isn't the story about all of these the same as with bats and fish?

What is wrong with examining the evidence? Does this bother you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126431 Apr 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Invertebrate fossils found are in the hundreds of millions and some 500,000 fish fossils have been found; however, no transitional forms - not even one example - has ever been found between vertebrates and invertebrates. So how could vertebrate evolution be any mystery? Isn't this evidence clear enough? What if 10 years from now we find another 100,000 fish fossils and another million invertebrate fossils, and there still is no transitional forms between the two groups? Would this be enough to change anyone's mind?
Fish are proposed to have evolved from invertebrates; however, we have millions of elasmobranchs, actinistains, holocephalians, dipnoans, heterostracans, thelodontids, climatiformes, acanthodiformes, rhenanids, pyyctodontids, arthrodires, antiarchs, paleonisciformes, porolepiformes, anapsids, osteostracans, and osteolepiformes; and yet, not a single solitary common ancestor fish of any of them has ever been found. Hundreds of millions to none!
Are the ancestors of each fish group really missing? Every major group of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed without any trace of ancestor for any of them. Without prejudice, and speaking as objectively as possible, doesn't this suggest that the fossil evidence says macroevolution never happened?
Another lie by Urb.

Of course there are transitional fossils between invertebrates and fish. You are simply to ignorant to see them.

A partial list can be found here. If you want to know of more go to your nearest university:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126432 Apr 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill you donít know anything about
What does this prove?
It proves that bats have not evolved much in recent (geological) times, neither have many other animals. This proves that as far as their fossils are concerned that they have evolved enough to fit the niche into which they fit. Now given those fossil remains how do you know what frequency range of sound these ancestral bats were attuned to? Do you know if their location ability has evolved during the last 50 million years? Do you know if the tolerance to different food sources has evolved over the last 50 million years? You donít know so you point is what?

BTY What are these predicted evolutionary ancestors you cite? It is predated that animals that perfectly fit their environmental niche have no need to evolve.
But if bats evolved as you claim, wouldn't you think there would be at least one or two example of their common ancestor in the fossil record by now? After finding thousands of bat fossils and they are all similar to today's bats and nothing else? Don't you see the issue here? Or would you rather avoid it? Do you think anyone will ever find the evidence? Are you saying all the bat ancestors failed to fossilize for some reason? Or do you think bats just formed suddenly out of nothing? By the way, this same line of reasoning goes with invertebrates, fish, trilobites, sea lions, birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126433 Apr 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie by Urb.
Of course there are transitional fossils between invertebrates and fish. You are simply to ignorant to see them.
A partial list can be found here. If you want to know of more go to your nearest university:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...
There aren't any in there. I'm not lying. Take trilobites as they are representative of the fossil record of invertebrates. There are over 100,000 discovered and no trilobite ancestors found. It's the same story no matter what fossil you examine. There just isn't any evidence. ALl the trilobites are fully formed trilobites and they are fabulously complex and diverse. But there's nothing in the fossil record - no direct ancestors of trilobites - no direct ancestors prior to the Cambrian older than 540 MYA.

And you don't see this as a problem for evolution? Is it really scientific to never see any weaknesses; to refuse any criticisms? Doesn't this make it personal?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#126434 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
But if bats evolved as you claim, wouldn't you think there would be at least one or two example of their common ancestor in the fossil record by now? After finding thousands of bat fossils and they are all similar to today's bats and nothing else? Don't you see the issue here? Or would you rather avoid it? Do you think anyone will ever find the evidence? Are you saying all the bat ancestors failed to fossilize for some reason? Or do you think bats just formed suddenly out of nothing? By the way, this same line of reasoning goes with invertebrates, fish, trilobites, sea lions, birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc.
Playing "wouldn't you think?" is about all you guys have to work with.

Wouldn't you think that if Creation really happened in the way you claim, someone could come up with a fossil that didn't fit the nested hierarchy which is required by the ToE?

Wouldn't you think that some aspect of your beliefs would manifest itself in reality in some demonstrable way?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#126435 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
But there's nothing in the fossil record - no direct ancestors of trilobites - no direct ancestors prior to the Cambrian older than 540 MYA.
How old is the Earth again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126436 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There aren't any in there. I'm not lying. Take trilobites as they are representative of the fossil record of invertebrates. There are over 100,000 discovered and no trilobite ancestors found. It's the same story no matter what fossil you examine. There just isn't any evidence. ALl the trilobites are fully formed trilobites and they are fabulously complex and diverse. But there's nothing in the fossil record - no direct ancestors of trilobites - no direct ancestors prior to the Cambrian older than 540 MYA.
And you don't see this as a problem for evolution? Is it really scientific to never see any weaknesses; to refuse any criticisms? Doesn't this make it personal?
Like I said you were too ignorant or too big of a liar to see them.

There are at least three in the link I gave. Try again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126437 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But the fact remains there is no predicted evolutionary ancestors of modern bats in the fossil record. Pease don't shoot the messenger! If this science is wrong, then prove it.
Of course there are predicted evolutionary ancestors. We would expect to find creatures measurably intermediate (convergent) with more typical small insectivorous mammals at some point earlier than we find bats. Perhaps something more like a modern sugar glider in some respects.

So we haven't found them for bats (yet)?

You would have had a point, except that we have found intermediates for so many other modern species and genera. Therefore assuming that all the species we have found intermediates for evolved, but the one we have not found intermediates for did not, would be very strange thinking indeed.

Missing data does not violate evolution when we already have so many examples that showed it did happen. Bat prattling will get you nowhere.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126438 Apr 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
If there is no heaven then there is no God. The bible acknowledges heaven but if you're a Christian you can doubt. How do you explain near death experience and if there is no heaven, then Jesus is dead and there is no God. How can you believe in the bible and not believe in heaven and hell?
Typical. You think you have to believe in Jesus, or heaven, or hell, or the Bible, to believe in God.

Bullshit.

Its perfectly logical to accept the possibility of God (an intelligent creator of the universe etc) without believing in all that Bible nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126439 Apr 6, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Oh looky, a chimney Poe. What a waste of time. WTF, life is short chimney, quit wasting it on parody.
You seriously thought I wrote that? Funny.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126440 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Invertebrate fossils found are in the hundreds of millions and some 500,000 fish fossils have been found; however, no transitional forms - not even one example - has ever been found between vertebrates and invertebrates. So how could vertebrate evolution be any mystery? Isn't this evidence clear enough? What if 10 years from now we find another 100,000 fish fossils and another million invertebrate fossils, and there still is no transitional forms between the two groups? Would this be enough to change anyone's mind?
Fish are proposed to have evolved from invertebrates; however, we have millions of elasmobranchs, actinistains, holocephalians, dipnoans, heterostracans, thelodontids, climatiformes, acanthodiformes, rhenanids, pyyctodontids, arthrodires, antiarchs, paleonisciformes, porolepiformes, anapsids, osteostracans, and osteolepiformes; and yet, not a single solitary common ancestor fish of any of them has ever been found. Hundreds of millions to none!
Are the ancestors of each fish group really missing? Every major group of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed without any trace of ancestor for any of them. Without prejudice, and speaking as objectively as possible, doesn't this suggest that the fossil evidence says macroevolution never happened?
So you are suggesting that all the evolution of fish and other vertebrates since the most primitive Pikaia and Conodonts, was all microevolution?

Wow, its almost like you accept evolution. One tiny change after another. Kudos.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126441 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But if bats evolved as you claim, wouldn't you think there would be at least one or two example of their common ancestor in the fossil record by now? After finding thousands of bat fossils and they are all similar to today's bats and nothing else? Don't you see the issue here? Or would you rather avoid it? Do you think anyone will ever find the evidence? Are you saying all the bat ancestors failed to fossilize for some reason? Or do you think bats just formed suddenly out of nothing? By the way, this same line of reasoning goes with invertebrates, fish, trilobites, sea lions, birds, reptiles, dinosaurs, etc.
There is no issue here. Until we found intermediates for

horses
primates
whales
hominids
cats
dogs
mammals
birds
dinosaurs
reptiles
tetrapods

and so on, we hadn't found them either.

The fact that we have, and that some show larger transformations than ones that are missing (and may always be missing), means the principle is established. Unless you think bats are SPECIAL CASE that appeared out of nowhere while everything around it was evolving. And that would be batshit crazy.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126442 Apr 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there are predicted evolutionary ancestors. We would expect to find creatures measurably intermediate (convergent) with more typical small insectivorous mammals at some point earlier than we find bats. Perhaps something more like a modern sugar glider in some respects.
So we haven't found them for bats (yet)?
You would have had a point, except that we have found intermediates for so many other modern species and genera. Therefore assuming that all the species we have found intermediates for evolved, but the one we have not found intermediates for did not, would be very strange thinking indeed.
Missing data does not violate evolution when we already have so many examples that showed it did happen. Bat prattling will get you nowhere.
I guess you have ignored other fossils I've criticized in a similar manner. But bats are significant as they represent 20% of all classified mammal species and are the only mammals capable of true flight and are very numerous and found worldwide. So I believe it is a big deal that we have 1,000s of bat fossils and every one of them could just as well be from today's bats. You can't just ignore that. You never willing to give in to any weaknesses with the theory is distrubing and unscientific.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Samuel Patre 169,917
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 1 hr andet1987 1,846
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 4 hr Davidjayjordan 103
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 4 hr Davidjayjordan 25
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 95,385
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 22 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The ďcumulative evidenceĒ problem Mon jla2w 30