Scientists Discover "Frogmander," Americans Keep Teaching Creationism

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Give it another few years, and the creationists will be taken about as seriously as the flat earth society. loonies, the lot of 'em.

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.

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.

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.

@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.