1 in 8 US high school biology teachers still teach creationism

[bmy-]

But there is a big difference between thing X adapts to Y and slime became humanity.
Adoption does not prove macroevolution. When an animal adapts, its because it already have the genetic ability to do so. There are over 150 different breeds of Dogs. A coyote cant breed with a wolf, but there are still dogs. A coyote is not an "evolved" version of a wolf, just a refined version that fits into a different environment.(i think)

And evolution simply says they shared a common ancestor.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0407123824.htm



Researchers have confirmed the first case of complete lunglessness in a frog. This little aquatic frog apparently gets all the oxygen it needs through its skin.

The above article.. well i'll go out on a limb here and say that frog is getting 'close' to being 'recognized macroevolution'. I would think it can no longer interbreed successfully.

The problem with 'recognizing' macroevolution is that it takes place over the course of epochs.

[leafs43]

A new study came out recently.

12.5% of all biology teachers are idiots

http://www.popsci.com/future-human/a...es-creationism

[Galt]

I don't understand how people can claim that there isn't any evidence for macorevolution. It isn't being hid from anyone, it's published in journals and available to be observed both on the internet and at pretty much any university.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[William McC]

actually, coyotes can mate with BOTH wolves and dogs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote#..._hybridization

as the article continues to say, it seems that many coyote species are coyote/wolf hybrids

ah, very intestine. I must of read an out of date article. I did find another that said there have been no documented cases of "coydogs". But tats a niffty thing to know.

ANH-

well there you go. The two "different" specie can still breed.

Silent sniper -

yes yes, i have read that article before, but it does not show macroevolution. What it is showing is that the lizard can and is adapting to a new environment. This does not mean that it is going to become a new specie. The lizard is changing, but have it always had the genetic ability to change? This also seems like a hog-bog study. There were over lizards that lived in the environment, but suddenly all died and we dont know why, but then the new lizards evolved faster then ever thought possible! think about that for a second. Thats a pretty broad assumption dont you think?

If evolution can happen that fast, why cant humans fly? why cant humans breath under water? i mean come on! 70% of the planet is water, but we can only survive in it for what, 3 minutes?

[JAGERBOY]

If evolution can happen that fast, why cant humans fly? why cant humans breath under water? i mean come on! 70% of the planet is water, but we can only survive in it for what, 3 minutes?

Seriously, PM with your real user name, I want in on the joke.

[JBDW]

I'm not trying to say id is scientific fact, sciences have nothing to do with God or anything supernatural. However, the same goods for the Naturalist view, which is what is being taught and schools. Can evolution be the real deal? Sure, its possible. Can there still be God even with evolution? Why not? Do that's not what's going on, what have happened is people think that evolution "replaces" God. Why do we need God if we have evolution? What put the stuff here for it to evolve? That question is not a scientific question, but a philosophical question. I have a problem when schools leave out the beginning and just skip to the part where we all evolve. It just screams naturalism and is an indoctrination of a captivated audience.

Then that's the whole point. If ID is not science, there is absolutely no place for it in a science class, which is what this whole thread is all about. If people want to teach creationism sans the pseudoscience, they're free to do it in theology class. And in the interest of fairness, they might want to consider teaching the creation stories of every religion out there..

[grup910]

expanding.

this is getting way off topic and with my bad grammar i think im confusing you.

whats wrong with a teacher tell his students that the big bang may not be how the universe was formed? That is, the naturalist view of the universe.

when can we come teach evolution in your church?

[William McC]

JBDW and grup910


You both missed the point.

Yes, God and ID is not something that science can verify, however, to leave out the beginning and just skip over to evolution is dishonest. The inevitable conclusion that would be draw after only hearing how evolution is cause for all life is the naturalist world view. This is a philosophic view point and should not be taught in a science class room, just the same as Christianity should not be taught in a science class room.

[grup910]

JBDW and grup910


You both missed the point.

Yes, God and ID is not something that science can verify, however, to leave out the beginning and just skip over to evolution is dishonest. The inevitable conclusion that would be draw after only hearing how evolution is cause for all life is the naturalist world view. This is a philosophic view point and should not be taught in a science class room

fail. :-o

[JBDW]

JBDW and grup910


You both missed the point.

Yes, God and ID is not something that science can verify, however, to leave out the beginning and just skip over to evolution is dishonest. The inevitable conclusion that would be draw after only hearing how evolution is cause for all life is the naturalist world view. This is a philosophic view point and should not be taught in a science class room, just the same as Christianity should not be taught in a science class room.

It's not dishonest if you admit that there isn't a definitive answer yet for the beginning. If anything, it's more dishonest to propose an answer for which there is no evidence.

And no, it's not inherently a philosophical viewpoint. It could quite easily be scientific, as is demonstrated by hypotheses which serve to try an answer the question.

[TheAsianMan]

ah, very intestine. I must of read an out of date article. I did find another that said there have been no documented cases of "coydogs". But tats a niffty thing to know.

ANH-

well there you go. The two "different" specie can still breed.

Silent sniper -

yes yes, i have read that article before, but it does not show macroevolution. What it is showing is that the lizard can and is adapting to a new environment. This does not mean that it is going to become a new specie. The lizard is changing, but have it always had the genetic ability to change? This also seems like a hog-bog study. There were over lizards that lived in the environment, but suddenly all died and we dont know why, but then the new lizards evolved faster then ever thought possible! think about that for a second. Thats a pretty broad assumption dont you think?

If evolution can happen that fast, why cant humans fly? why cant humans breath under water? i mean come on! 70% of the planet is water, but we can only survive in it for what, 3 minutes?

yeah but they are still different genetically, just like how horse can mate with donkey and make a mule.

Hybridization happen all the time, sometime they work most of the time they dont and will create sterile offspring.



dude thats cause we live on land and have no need to live in water.... its like saying why don't fish fly i mean they only have the most space in the world.

[bmy-]

It's cause those sharks would eat us up yumyumyum.

[asiya-sparkles]

Let's say you're the principal of the school and I am your biology teacher. Tell me what experiments and scientific findings you would like me to teach about regarding creation? In your own words, no links or copy and paste.

How sad that so many have such a negative reaction to my comments...amusing even. So, you would like me to state my reasons for why at the very least balance should be put into teaching about life coming from an intelligent design perspective without using any scientific links that establish a particularly skilful (beyond human capability...fact) design throughout nature? Biologically, plantlife, space etceteras..whilst i suppose you may use the same sciences to reinforce your perspective?

Interesting.

I suggest that you look around you with your eyes wide open...through the sciences by all means.

[William McC]

dude thats cause we live on land and have no need to live in water.... its like saying why don't fish fly i mean they only have the most space in the world.

im pretty sure that we evolved from an aquatic creature. so, yeah.

[JBDW]

How sad that so many have such a negative reaction to my comments...amusing even. So, you would like me to state my reasons for why at the very least balance should be put into teaching about life coming from an intelligent design perspective without using any scientific links that establish a particularly skilful (beyond human capability...fact) design throughout nature? Biologically, plantlife, space etceteras..whilst i suppose you may use the same sciences to reinforce your perspective?

Interesting.

I suggest that you look around you with your eyes wide open...through the sciences by all means.

Typical. Bring nothing to the table but rhetoric, by all means. It's not like you have any scientific backing for your arguments anyway.

[Mr Beer]

If evolution can happen that fast, why cant humans fly? why cant humans breath under water? i mean come on! 70% of the planet is water, but we can only survive in it for what, 3 minutes?

You asked this question before and got answers which you were unable to rebut. Why do you keep on asking the same questions? It's obviously not for the purpose of learning the answers.