Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 6,296)

Showing posts 125,901 - 125,920 of168,532
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Brighouse, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129135
May 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 125,901 - 125,920 of168,532
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 105,982
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr DanFromSmithville 127,054
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 9 hr Dogen 13,475
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... 13 hr llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) 16 hr Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 15 ChristineM 13,936
•••
•••
•••
•••