Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,193

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

“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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129133 May 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Any such instances are simply explained away. Such is the plasticity of the evolution. The order and the dates are completely unreliable because the entire framework is built on circular logic and only conclusions that agree with evolution are acceptable. This is true of the geologic column, the dates, and the names given the fossils. A new genus/species name is created each time a new fossil is found which is erroneous if the fossil is the same species as its modern equivelant. Scientists used to have two part names for serveral different "races" of humans even though we are all one human species. Imagine for a moment if dogs were long extinct, and scientists found fossils of Pomeranian, Doberman, Pointer, Beagel, Pug, West Highlander, Mastiff, Chihuahua, Jack Russel, Irish Wolfhound, and Bulldog. These skulls and jawbones are very different from each yet they are all the same species capable of producing fertile offspring, yet the scientists would have different two-part names for each of them!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129134 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Any such instances are simply explained away. Such is the plasticity of the evolution. The order and the dates are completely unreliable because the entire framework is built on circular logic and only conclusions that agree with evolution are acceptable. This is true of the geologic column, the dates, and the names given the fossils. A new genus/species name is created each time a new fossil is found which is erroneous if the fossil is the same species as its modern equivelant. Scientists used to have two part names for serveral different "races" of humans even though we are all one human species. Imagine for a moment if dogs were long extinct, and scientists found fossils of Pomeranian, Doberman, Pointer, Beagel, Pug, West Highlander, Mastiff, Chihuahua, Jack Russel, Irish Wolfhound, and Bulldog. These skulls and jawbones are very different from each yet they are all the same species capable of producing fertile offspring, yet the scientists would have different two-part names for each of them!
I knew you'd deny that learning was a good thing.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129135 May 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Any such instances are simply explained away. Such is the plasticity of the evolution. The order and the dates are completely unreliable because the entire framework is built on circular logic and only conclusions that agree with evolution are acceptable. This is true of the geologic column, the dates, and the names given the fossils. A new genus/species name is created each time a new fossil is found which is erroneous if the fossil is the same species as its modern equivelant. Scientists used to have two part names for serveral different "races" of humans even though we are all one human species. Imagine for a moment if dogs were long extinct, and scientists found fossils of Pomeranian, Doberman, Pointer, Beagel, Pug, West Highlander, Mastiff, Chihuahua, Jack Russel, Irish Wolfhound, and Bulldog. These skulls and jawbones are very different from each yet they are all the same species capable of producing fertile offspring, yet the scientists would have different two-part names for each of them!
Yes they would be Canis Familiaris.... dufus.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129136 May 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes they would be Canis Familiaris.... dufus.
No dumbass, if dogs were long ago extinct, and evolutionist found many different breeds as fossils, every find would have a different species name and there would be this elaborate story of how one "evolved" into the other. They would be given every name imaginable except Familiaris. Dufus.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129137 May 6, 2013
Look at a dinosaur-era fossil, i.e., a sea urchin, and compare it to a living Sea Urchin (you can do this for ANY dinosaur-era fossil!). They look exactly the same down to the tiniest detail, yet the living sea urchin is called Eucidaris tribuloides and the fossil Sea Urchin is called Hemicidaris intermedia.

Now I ask this simple question: Are the differences between these two Sea Urchins (and there are none) greater than the difference between a Pomeranian and a French Mastiff?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129138 May 6, 2013
If I were to compare dinosaur-era fossils of echinoderms, crustaceans, shellfish, corals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals to their living complement which appear very similar, in every case, there is a different genus/species name assigned for each pair even though they appear to be the same in every detail. If you ignore the names, you can see that evolution never happened!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129139 May 6, 2013
What do you think we'd find, if we compared dinosaur-era Arthropods to living Arthropods? Do you think there will be any difference other than the genus/species names?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#129140 May 6, 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?
Of course not! A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. That's just science.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#129141 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Look at a dinosaur-era fossil, i.e., a sea urchin, and compare it to a living Sea Urchin (you can do this for ANY dinosaur-era fossil!). They look exactly the same down to the tiniest detail, yet the living sea urchin is called Eucidaris tribuloides and the fossil Sea Urchin is called Hemicidaris intermedia.
Now I ask this simple question: Are the differences between these two Sea Urchins (and there are none) greater than the difference between a Pomeranian and a French Mastiff?
Are you implying the environmental stressors on survival on the ocean floor, in the urchin's niche, have anything to do with any other animal's or plant's or microorganism's environmental stressors on survival? And, just because YOU don't understand the differences in various organisms doesn't mean they are the same. I suppose you think all Chinese look the same, too?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#129142 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
What do you think we'd find, if we compared dinosaur-era Arthropods to living Arthropods? Do you think there will be any difference other than the genus/species names?
Yes, we know, you think all Chinese people look the same. We get it. Your untrained eye and ignorant misunderstanding of paleontology is the proper standard for the scientific community.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129143 May 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know, you think all Chinese people look the same. We get it. Your untrained eye and ignorant misunderstanding of paleontology is the proper standard for the scientific community.
And as usual, you ignore the point. No, you're way too loyal to answer honestly.

Chinese people are human and like all living humans, they have the same genus/species name even though they differ greatly in appearance. But if they were found as fossils, each one of them would be assigned a different name. THis is how your stupid fantasy works.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129144 May 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know, you think all Chinese people look the same. We get it. Your untrained eye and ignorant misunderstanding of paleontology is the proper standard for the scientific community.
Sorry, I must have offended your belief system. That is the only explanation for why you have to raise ridiculous questions.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129145 May 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you implying the environmental stressors on survival on the ocean floor, in the urchin's niche, have anything to do with any other animal's or plant's or microorganism's environmental stressors on survival? And, just because YOU don't understand the differences in various organisms doesn't mean they are the same. I suppose you think all Chinese look the same, too?
I would think if they (the dinosaur-era fossil and the living creature) were identical, they should have the same names but they never do. What is logical? To assume the two could produce fertile offspring or to assume they could not? What does the physical evidence suggest? Yes; it suggests they probably could, i.e., there is nothing to suggest they could not. Yet, they always have a completely different name assigned in spite of appearing very similar. WAY more similar than a Pomeranian and a French Mastiff.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129146 May 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not! A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. That's just science.
Oh Yes! A slightly smaller, browner rabbit is certainly proof positive of evolution! You betcha!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129147 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
If I were to compare dinosaur-era fossils of echinoderms, crustaceans, shellfish, corals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals to their living complement which appear very similar, in every case, there is a different genus/species name assigned for each pair even though they appear to be the same in every detail. If you ignore the names, you can see that evolution never happened!
If you took skulls of a greyhound, bulldog, chihuahua, and St. Bernard and interpreted them using the modern standards of paleontology, they would be classified as entirely different species. Yet they aren't. They are all a single species, Canis familiaris.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 13 min Subduction Zone 141,636
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 18 min Aura Mytha 14,419
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 1 hr -TheExam- 13,957
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr dirtclod 770
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 8 hr NoahLovesU 3
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 8 hr NoahLovesU 1,954
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Jan 22 TurkanaBoy 2
More from around the web