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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129111 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts? Like what facts? You never offer any facts or your bigoted opinion. You and the others are PURE ideology. You don't have ANY science. All you have on your side is what you were conditioned to believe and that in your mind is "more intellectual" to reject God and reject reality and believe this whole made-up world you believe in because all the "smart teachers" told me to. Well, I'm here to tell you your reality is not backed up by any science. Not by *ANY*. The ONLY thing you got is, in your mind, "Most scientists believe it" so that is the reason you believe it. So regardless of not having any evidence at all, and it just so happens that it supports your atheistic beleifs, you enthusiatically support it. Oh and the ape-man, that must be proof positive that evolution is true. The Ape-Man. The Holy Grail of evolution. Horseshit. There is more variation in humans and dogs for that matter living today that would more than compensate for any perceived ape-man transitional fossil ten times over. It bullshit.
The contents of this post are:

1. A denial that we have facts, when facts are posted to you all the time.

2. The accusation that it is only a combination of pride (intellectual snobbery) and following empty authority that would make someone accept evolution. In other words, ad hominem attacks revealing your frustration and nothing more.

3. The ridiculous idea that Homo erectus could pass for a modern human.

You have nothing but denial and empty accusations. Your motives are obvious, and your arguments weak. Give it up.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129113 May 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is NOT that there were salamanders, cockroaches, and lizards alongside dinosaurs.
You obviously don't know what the issue is. I pointed out that - just like all known plants and animals - there is no fossil ancestors of bats. Bat fossils just appear wherever they are found, as bats. No pre-bats, just bats that look exactly the same as a modern bat. KK said that land fossils are rare and and that bats are too soft to fossilize, etc. Then I point out jellyfish fossils. So she comes back with sea creatures more easily fossilize because of the environment. That is why I pointed out and refute her with dozens of examples of much softer, much more delicate creatures that are land based, and all of them happen to be found next to dinosaurs and looking just like modern ones. So you can either support her like a true fellow evotard cult member or not. I hope you do. That would be more fun for me.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129114 May 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
However, the appearance of highly derived modern forms before their evolutionary antecedents would be eivdence aginst evolution.
And we never find them.
And whenever they are, the theory is adjusted and fixed so that doesn't happen.(OMG I can't believe it - this is so stupid!)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129115 May 5, 2013
A team of paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History and their colleagues have described the oldest, most complete fossil skeleton yet found of a primitive rabbit. The 55-million-year-old fossil animal, named Gomphos elkema is the oldest complete skeleton by about 20 million years and shows that some early lagomorphs, the group of animals that includes rabbits and hares, had a surprisingly modern, rabbit-like way of moving around. Its hindlimb was much longer than its forelimb, giving it a true "rabbit's foot" more than twice as long as its forepaw, which could be used for hopping. Other features of the skeleton, however, do not resemble modern rabbits. For instance, G. elkema, had a moderately sized tail, molar teeth with roots and distinct cusps, and a primitive jaw. Overall, this mix of features from modern rodents and lagomorphs supports the previously controversial but now generally agreed-upon idea that these two groups are closely related.

http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/rabbit.php

Here's your rabbit. Of course, the dates are all wrong.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129116 May 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, how do you know these fossil insects, arthopods etc. look exactly like modern species? Experts can tell the differences. The fact that you haven't got the ability is not their fault.
They're basically a mirror image of the modern equivelant. The fact that I don't buy into all the "problematica" and name-game antics where you just make up another all sciency-sounding name and another date that you pull out of your ass to make the theory work is not my problem.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129117 May 5, 2013
Your "Pre-cambrian" rabbit. Only it's a jellyfish:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129119 May 5, 2013
Whenever an evolutionist finds of fossil they get to make a name for it and are credited as long as it supports the theory. Even if it looks exactly like the modern equivelant, they give a different species name (in latin in italics - how cute) even though there is no way to test whether or not it IS the same as the modern species, i.e., whether the two could produce fertile offspring. All the fossils that look exactly like the moderb equivelant, i.e, ALL fossils, should really be the same species as the ones living today because everything about it suggests that it is the same species as today - because there is no evidence to suggest that it is not.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129120 May 5, 2013
molke wrote:
Would a thinking God have created Negroes?
It seems he was ok with creating cretins
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129121 May 5, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems he was ok with creating cretins
You're certainly proof of that.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#129122 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And whenever they are, the theory is adjusted and fixed so that doesn't happen.
Sorry. That works with Bible prophecies, not ToE.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129123 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're certainly proof of that.
Since my comment was in response to molke's , I presume you agree with him

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#129124 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
A team of paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History and their colleagues have described the oldest, most complete fossil skeleton yet found of a primitive rabbit. The 55-million-year-old fossil animal, named Gomphos elkema is the oldest complete skeleton by about 20 million years and shows that some early lagomorphs, the group of animals that includes rabbits and hares, had a surprisingly modern, rabbit-like way of moving around. Its hindlimb was much longer than its forelimb, giving it a true "rabbit's foot" more than twice as long as its forepaw, which could be used for hopping. Other features of the skeleton, however, do not resemble modern rabbits. For instance, G. elkema, had a moderately sized tail, molar teeth with roots and distinct cusps, and a primitive jaw. Overall, this mix of features from modern rodents and lagomorphs supports the previously controversial but now generally agreed-upon idea that these two groups are closely related.
http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/rabbit.php
Here's your rabbit. Of course, the dates are all wrong.
So it's not a modern rabbit but rather an intermediate species with some rabbit features but not others.

Doesn't that make it a transitional?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129125 May 5, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's not a modern rabbit but rather an intermediate species with some rabbit features but not others.
Doesn't that make it a transitional?
Absolutely, positively,
unequivocally, precisely and apparently. also
evidently - obviously - seemingly - clearly

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129126 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
A team of paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History and their colleagues have described the oldest, most complete fossil skeleton yet found of a primitive rabbit. The 55-million-year-old fossil animal, named Gomphos elkema is the oldest complete skeleton by about 20 million years and shows that some early lagomorphs, the group of animals that includes rabbits and hares, had a surprisingly modern, rabbit-like way of moving around. Its hindlimb was much longer than its forelimb, giving it a true "rabbit's foot" more than twice as long as its forepaw, which could be used for hopping. Other features of the skeleton, however, do not resemble modern rabbits. For instance, G. elkema, had a moderately sized tail, molar teeth with roots and distinct cusps, and a primitive jaw. Overall, this mix of features from modern rodents and lagomorphs supports the previously controversial but now generally agreed-upon idea that these two groups are closely related.
http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/rabbit.php
Here's your rabbit. Of course, the dates are all wrong.
As I told you the name "Squishy" was already taken. Shooting himself in the foot is rusty's specialty.

You found an excellent example of a transitional fossil. What are you complaining about?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129127 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously don't know what the issue is. I pointed out that - just like all known plants and animals - there is no fossil ancestors of bats. Bat fossils just appear wherever they are found, as bats. No pre-bats, just bats that look exactly the same as a modern bat. KK said that land fossils are rare and and that bats are too soft to fossilize, etc. Then I point out jellyfish fossils. So she comes back with sea creatures more easily fossilize because of the environment. That is why I pointed out and refute her with dozens of examples of much softer, much more delicate creatures that are land based, and all of them happen to be found next to dinosaurs and looking just like modern ones. So you can either support her like a true fellow evotard cult member or not. I hope you do. That would be more fun for me.
You love putting words into people's posts. Read what I actually did say again.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129128 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Whenever an evolutionist finds of fossil they get to make a name for it and are credited as long as it supports the theory. Even if it looks exactly like the modern equivelant, they give a different species name (in latin in italics - how cute) even though there is no way to test whether or not it IS the same as the modern species, i.e., whether the two could produce fertile offspring. All the fossils that look exactly like the moderb equivelant, i.e, ALL fossils, should really be the same species as the ones living today because everything about it suggests that it is the same species as today - because there is no evidence to suggest that it is not.
Evidence of this ...?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129129 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
A team of paleontologists from the American Museum of Natural History and their colleagues have described the oldest, most complete fossil skeleton yet found of a primitive rabbit. The 55-million-year-old fossil animal, named Gomphos elkema is the oldest complete skeleton by about 20 million years and shows that some early lagomorphs, the group of animals that includes rabbits and hares, had a surprisingly modern, rabbit-like way of moving around. Its hindlimb was much longer than its forelimb, giving it a true "rabbit's foot" more than twice as long as its forepaw, which could be used for hopping. Other features of the skeleton, however, do not resemble modern rabbits. For instance, G. elkema, had a moderately sized tail, molar teeth with roots and distinct cusps, and a primitive jaw. Overall, this mix of features from modern rodents and lagomorphs supports the previously controversial but now generally agreed-upon idea that these two groups are closely related.
http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/rabbit.php
Here's your rabbit. Of course, the dates are all wrong.
Demonstrated a hoax. Next fallacy.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#129130 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
EZEKIEL'S TYRE PROPHESY WAS FULFILLED!
And as a side note, isn't it interesting that the evotards have abandoned defending their ideology and instead attack using theology! That just cracks me up! LOL! Beer time. Celebration time!

Tyre Refuted (again).

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/992t...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#129131 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Whenever an evolutionist finds of fossil they get to make a name for it and are credited as long as it supports the theory. Even if it looks exactly like the modern equivelant, they give a different species name (in latin in italics - how cute) even though there is no way to test whether or not it IS the same as the modern species, i.e., whether the two could produce fertile offspring. All the fossils that look exactly like the moderb equivelant, i.e, ALL fossils, should really be the same species as the ones living today because everything about it suggests that it is the same species as today - because there is no evidence to suggest that it is not.

Never mind that this is bat guano crazy and completely delusional.

Why don't you try reading about how fossils are classified and what happens to the name if it is initially misidentified.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129132 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And whenever they are, the theory is adjusted and fixed so that doesn't happen.(OMG I can't believe it - this is so stupid!)
Ironically, you just mentioned the strength of science and why scientific understand benefits us every day .... yet you will never once admit that learning is actually a positive thing.

Oh, and he was correct, so far none have been found out of place, not one actual fossil.

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) 9 min 15th Dalai Lama 169,884
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Darsey 95,384
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 3 hr Darsey 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 3 hr Davidjayjordan 100
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... 7 hr 15th Dalai Lama 71
The “cumulative evidence” problem Mon jla2w 30
E equals MC squared Jun 17 Jim Ryan 15