Scientists Discover “Frogmander,” Americans Keep Teaching Creationism
Thu, May 22, 2008
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
Image from University of Calgary
Some people just don’t get the point, no matter how much stuff happens – Americans continue to see creationism taught in their schools not as a religious doctrine, but as science, by at least a quarter of the nation’s biology teachers.Despite a 2005 Pennsylvania court case that threw intelligent design out of the classroom, states still set their own precedent, and teachers, more than legislators, are in control of what happens in their classroom. This is a dangerous proposition when 16% of the nation’s biology teachers are creationists, and 1 in 6 of those believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. It’s this very population that may not be qualified to explain to their students what is going on when scientists in the field discover an animal like the frogmander: a 290-million-year-old fossil linking modern frogs and salamanders to a single ancient amphibian.
The frogmander is just the latest in a long, long line of body blows to creationism that are typically shrugged off as the work of the devil, or the by-products of a scientific community that’s not open to a pluralism of views when it comes to creationism. Instead, this frog, the Gerobatrachus hottoni, or “elderly frog” will help unify the family tree of amphibians, which had been shrouded in scientific mystery since time immemorial. The ancient record existed up until the point that the elderly frog should have existed, and the modern one began after it, but the gap was not to be filled until the current issue of the journal “Nature” was released, and with it the news of this missing evolutionary link.
First collected in the 1990s, nobody noticed the significance of the frogmander until 2004, when a scientist going through the archives of the Smithsonian Institution found what are termed “archaic features” in the fossil, anachronisms that gave away the frogmander’s deep secret.
Image from cpurrin1
Environmental Graffiti is up for four bloggers’ choice awards. You can vote for us for best entertainment blog, best blog of all time, best geek blog and best animal blogger.
If you want to find out all the latest news on the environment, why not subscribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
In defense of American Education:
I grew up in a very rural, very conservative small town in the “Bible Belt” of the Kentucky. I also went to Catholic school, and “religion” was one of my classes.
I would be a perfect candidate to come out of junior high with little or no education concerning evolution, but that was not the case. We learned evolution as scientific doctrine, and we even did gene charts to learn about recessive/dominant genes. I discovered why I have blue eyes and brown hair, even though my mom has dark eyes and dark hair. It was neat!
My teacher (who was not a nun) did describe intelligent design to us, but she taught it as an idea or philosophy – not as a fact. We discussed it, and the debate between science and religion. Then we dove into sex ed (ironically taught by nuns).
To my knowledge, none of the parents or nuns had a problem with this. I was unaware of any uproar over evolution in the class room, and in such a small community usually we got whiff of controversy. In fact, there was more uproar over reading “The Giver”.
So it’s not all that bad here. Some places are obviously worse than others, and perhaps things have changed. But to say the majority of American oppose evolution int he class room, even in conservative states, is perhaps an overstatement. Besides, if it does get worse we’ll just be shooting ourselves in the foot. I encourage the rest of the world to take advantage of that and get ahead because we’ll deserve it. Unfortuantely in this case, we’ll reap what we sow.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Actually Michelle, the Catholics are not the problem in the evolution versus ID debate. Not one of the Catholics I know disputes evolution- as far as they are concerned Evolution is simply something God set in motion as part of a master plan.
The problem with the evolution debate is the fundamentalists who translate the bible literally and refuse to acknowledge where allegory and other bits of creative story telling have crept in. You can’t argue with people who refuse to believe the Earth is 4 billion years old, despite tons of scientific evidence, simply because the bible says so.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Catholics are some of the most secular religious people of any theistic religion. I was raised Catholic in So-cal myself, but we’re all very secular over here. We were taught science in the same fashion and today I’m a big fan of mathematics, physics, biology, cosmology, and many other sciences that help show just how completely wrong religion is in virtually every regard.
The problem isn’t with Catholics, this issue is most prominent with Christians. I don’t think I’ve ever met a Catholic that took the story of Genesis literally, but I sure as hell have met many denominations of Christians that do.
The problem is lack of education; plain and simple. Furthering this igorance are the parents and officials that see it in their position of power to force religious doctrine down these children’s throats. What real choice can you have when you’ve been brainwashed from the beginning?
As Richard Dawkins commonly states, it’s a travesty to mankind that people can get away with scaring their children into believing religious nonsense.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I also attended a Catholic high school and believe that I received a good science education there (except chemistry because a teacher had a breakdown and our class was combined with another for the remainder of the year). I was raised in an evangelical church, so it was my Catholic biology teacher who first suggested to me that God could have created the Big Bang. I actually remember feeling uncomfortable when he made that statement, which shows how far along I have come since then(Pastafarian). I’m just glad I was able to escape the festering pool of ignorance I heard every Sunday for fifteen years.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
@CHB: I think you may be referring to “Protestants” instead of “Christians” as opposed to Catholics. That is, in my American vernacular (Latin America more commonly uses your wording).
I’d say the suburban / exurban mega-churches are more specifically aligned with this. There simply aren’t enough rural people to count anymore, so you can’t pin this on them. I grew up in a rural area, and they are more in the old-school Lutheran bent, and of much the same approach as Catholics. Call it “mainline” Christianity, although their number are dropping drastically in favor of those mega churches.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Well I’m a Christian not a Catholic… Catholics are Christians too by the way. Anyway I was raised in a churches where they do teach things like young earth and dinosaurs living with man. My faith, my religion is not based on how the world was created it’s based on life style and morals. So realizing that, I accept evolution is the best possible answer of how man can explain life with modern science and thats good enough for me.
The problem is the people like Richard Dawkins don’t help the cause against creationism in schools. Instead of countering with logic which really I don’t see why they don’t they respond with insult and banter.
Just like what CHB said, “As Richard Dawkins commonly states, it’s a travesty to mankind that people can get away with scaring their children into believing religious nonsense.” That’s not an argument thats hate. There is nothing wrong with religion and even if you think there is it’s not easy to convince people to change their minds by putting them on the defensive.
But unfortunately I’m afraid that no one especially those from the internet will get this idea. So the change will have to come from within and that will take me and others like me some time.
In the mean time it might be a good idea to see what exactly there arguments are so you can counter them with what science has to say about that. It may also be a good idea to try to not end your argument with “and thus as you can plainly see this proves there is no god.”
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Please don’t generalize. All Americans aren’t completely ignorant fools. It’s just that pesky 20% that is absolutely insane on every issue presented to them.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
You know, ignorance cuts both ways. For 1500 years, Catholicism *was* Christianity in the West. It looks like you think Catholics aren’t Christians, to which I can only reply “WTF?!?!”
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Creationism has sound scientific backing. Every life form has a bioelectric field. Condensing this bioelectric field and magnetizing it on a specially arranged pile of circuit managing molecules might be a good way to ‘create’ life.
President Truman admitted ufos are real in 1952. NASA has begun looking for living electromagnetic fields, living dust, and living vibrational beings. It might be wise to presume that alien life of one of these varieties had a hand in guiding the evolution and origination of mankind.
Consider http://www.timetravelisforsuckers.blogspot.com and creationism.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Michelle- It’s nice to see some religious classrooms with a bit of sense. My “beef” is not with those who see intelligent design as a philosophy. I have often described, to more “fundie” Catholics, that evolution is the tool with which God made life as we know it. God (as I understand It) rarely needs to work in “mysterious ways.” The greatest mystery is the one nobody can deny or explain- why is there anything here at all? My beef is with those who see the fantastical, magical “creationism” as fact and evolution as a complete falsehood. There is simply too much evidence for any logical, level headed, thinking person to deny it. Thanks for giving me more faith in the faithful!
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
When you die you will be judged. The baloney you spit out as evolution will come back to haunt you. facts or not, where did the world start? Where did micrnisms start? Animals, vegetables, minerals??? From God. You don’t like it but it doesn’t matter. get your house in order now, because when you die it’s too late, and then you will be in Hell with charles darwin.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 am
Even the drawing makes the thing look like a frog. Tadpoles have tails, mind you, and look very different from an adult frog. I have a couple thoughts you should consider when you preach on evolution. Where did the matter for the big bang come from and how did the physical laws come into being? How did life come about anyway? When abiogenesis was proposed (it was also debunked long ago by pasteur), they had no idea how complex one cell was. If one cell can be created by chance, how come we can’t create a single cell in the lab??? Even if we could, it would prove that it takes intelligence to produce life. Although I am a young earth creationist, I don’t think there is reason to teach either of our religions (yes, yours is a religion too, you have to have lots of faith to think that we all came from rock soup, the spawn of an exploding dot) in the public school classroom. All you have evidence of is that animals adapt, creationists don’t argue that. We argue that cows don’t change into whales and rocks don’t change into fish – which should be obvious to a second grader. If you were so confident about your theory, you would be willing to look at the MOUNDS of evidence to the contrary.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Where did the matter for the big bang come from and how did the physical laws come into being?”
Evolution explains the diversity of species, it has nothing to do with the big bang or physical laws.
“How did life come about anyway?”
No one knows for sure yet but again evolution does not and has never claimed to explain this.
“When abiogenesis was proposed (it was also debunked long ago by pasteur), they had no idea how complex one cell was. If one cell can be created by chance, how come we can’t create a single cell in the lab???”
There are several different hypothesis’s within abiogenesis all were proposed after Pasteur’s death so he didn’t debunk any of them. What Pasteur debunked was spontaneous generation, the idea that mice, rats, maggots etc spontaneously arose from decaying organic matter. As for why can’t we recreate a single cell from scratch in the lab thats because we don’t yet know how the first living cells arose, we can’t recreate processes we’ve not identified.
“Although I am a young earth creationist,”
Then your problem is not just with evolution its with just about the whole of modern day science.
“I don’t think there is reason to teach either of our religions (yes, yours is a religion too, you have to have lots of faith to think that we all came from rock soup, the spawn of an exploding dot)”
Science is not a religion.
“All you have evidence of is that animals adapt, creationists don’t argue that.”
There is far more evidence than that, everything from genetics to fossils all support evolution.
“We argue that cows don’t change into whales and rocks don’t change into fish – which should be obvious to a second grader.”
Evolution does not teach that, you have created a strawman to argue against.
“If you were so confident about your theory, you would be willing to look at the MOUNDS of evidence to the contrary”
And these mounds are where exactly? lol.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:28 am
I don’t know why you people keep trying to argue with the fundie, “young Earth” creationists. It’s like trying to convince a schizophrenic that their hair’s not on fire. Give it up, these people are not mentally well. Evolution is plainly obvious, those who argue that the Earth is 10,000 years old and some sentient creator god shat all life out in a week needs to be on meds.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Give it another few years, and the creationists will be taken about as seriously as the flat earth society. loonies, the lot of ‘em.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:19 am
I am a student at a local high school in Northern California. I am researching laws which may prohibit the teaching of creation in schools. CHB says that parents and others use there authority to shove views down childrens throats. By teachers trying to take creation out of schools and strickly teach evolution, that is forcing view points down childrens throats. If people say that scientist have hard facts that cant be denied by a educated person. Then except the challenge educate both beliefs. why are you teaching only one belief. Seems to me that that is more brainwashing.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Why do people think this “frogmander” is a proof of Evolution? Creationists believe that evolution occurs and has occurred; i.e. that types of animals change over time.
Every time I see a “proof” of Evolution in school, it’s something like the butterfly having different colors or a bird getting a longer beak. Maybe frogs and salamanders are related, but when the frog starts to grow feathers and fly I might be impressed. Until then this is perfectly in line with what creationists teach (except for maybe the time difference).
November 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is tale which tells what recessive genes hold, what inbreeding cause’s and what degenerate animals look like.
A male lion breeds with a female tiger, makes a liger of great size!
2
a male leopard breed with a female lion brings forth a leopon. Which not only has the size and strength of the lion but also has the climbing abilities of the leopard.
3
All that has so far been said, is recognized by science.
4
Now into the realm of what has not yet been ‘validated’ (by science).
5
All the other cats are said to interbreed
from time to time.
6
The division of Species is based on the idea that, only members of the same ‘Species’ can indeed breed.
But if all cats ( including the Egyptian house cat) can breed, they are not different Species but only subspecies of the original cat.
Now, if the liger is bigger and the leopon is of the same size and better. Then it comes to reason that the original cat from off the Ark was a super cat.
Scientists say that the “extra” abilities that come out of these ‘hybrids’ are caused by “recessive genes”
Recessive Genes are created by inbreeding.
Now here is the part that might interest a historian.
Gen 7:2
“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.”
In this I think that the clean animals were allowed to descend without inbreeding and therefore pure. While the others were forced into inbreeding, which caused their abilities to go into ‘Recessive genes’. The ancients had enough trouble with the lions, tigers, etc. So this might have been set to preserve man. Did you know that in India they breed the wild dog with the wolf to get a bigger breed. This alone means nothing, except that there is a story whcih appeared shortly after the flood. No later that 500 years, or 600, or 700, etc, after the flood. The story told of a great king who had wolves so great that his men were able to ride upon them, for they were far greater than any horse.
Maybe I’m going nowhere, but if only two cats, two dogs, two bears, etc, walked off the Ark. Then I say that it would immediately force inbreeding, which in turn would force abilities to go into recessive genes. And (to the point) would force the super Cat to degenerate into the lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah and house cat that we have today.
I’m sorry I couldn’t help joking and calling the lion and tiger a degenerate.
“In the production of pure breeds of sheep, cattle, hogs, and horses inbreeding has frequently been practiced extensively, and where in such cases selection has been made of the more vigorous offspring as parents, it is doubtful whether any diminution in size, vigor, or fertility has resulted. Nevertheless it very frequently happens that when two pure breeds are crossed, the offspring surpass either pure race in size and vigor.”
Sudden Origins by Jeffrey H. Schwartz
The tiger is either a pure breed are a degenerate species!
Or I say.
They are one and the same..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Else, the reason why the clean were in sevens as opposed to the others.
Genetic research (and this basic reasoning and breeding) has shown that every type of wolf, dog, fox and coyote etc. came from the 1 original wolf.
Scott, John Paul and John L. Fuller Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog
Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canines (Hardcover) by Michael W. Fox
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca)
“Mitochondrial Eve is the ………..common ancestor (MRCA) of all human via the mitochondrial DNA pathway . In other words, she is the MRCA found when ancestry of all living humans is traced back in time, following only the maternal lineage. Mitochondrial DNA pathway is equivalent to maternal lineage, because Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from mother to child, never father to child. [1]”
Camel-Llama-alpaca
All known subspecies of the “horse” are known to breed!
1 Last thing.
this theory is observable & testable, in that you can breed new ‘breeds’ of dogs in just a few years. But each of these will have less ‘ablities’ than the last.
Just take 2 dogs (of your choice) & place them in a zoo. Now there children will be fine but as there children breed with each other you will see the same thing happen. Only it will go ten times further than before.
Kentish Son
I am sending this into the world because I want to get the word out.
October 4th, 2009 at 6:08 am
I can’t say I’ve heard of a public high school anywhere that teaches creationism alone, but what is the harm in just pointing out the existence of other theories? Science is all about thinking critically, not accepting dogmatic teachings on a hypothetical explanation for a philosophical question (”Why are we here?”)
I am a creationist, but other than briefly mentioning it as an alternative viewpoint, I don’t want creationism taught in public schools. I could teach very effectively about evolution, but subtle, subconscious words and intonations I would use would probably steer someone emotionally. In the same way, a teacher who is required to mention creationism will probably mis-teach the belief, even if not on purpose.
As for this specific specimen, there is nothing challenging to creationism in a possible common ancestor between frogs, toads, salamanders, and maybe newts. They are very similar as it is, and the Bible does not teach that all the animal species that exist today existed in the same state at creation. Rather, it teaches that certain kinds of animals were each created, and from those kinds, various species arose (which is what we observe in nature today). In this case, if this fossil truly is a common ancestor, that means that frogs and salamanders have diverged through speciation from a common ancestor, which is consistent with creationism because it shows only a decrease and reshuffling of genetic material, not an increase in material. Going from “frogmander” to “frog” is subtracting the “-mander” part of the animal, and vice versa. That is exactly what the creationist theory predicts of a fallen world in which mutations and other factors change the original face of creation.