Should evolution be taught in high school?

[xians R STOOPID]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know that Answers in Genesis (AiG) is the people that started and run the Creation Museum in Kentucky??

that museum shoud be called..,MYTHSonian..LOL

[Dave]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe he was doing a satirical takeoff on what you previously wrote.
I take it you don't believe the "Out of Africa" theory to be correct. I wonder if you could give me your qualifications to judge OOA...
And why are you so upset with belief in OOA??
Are you aware of the National Geographic and IBM genome study of a few years ago?? Information can be found at link below
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/ge...
Short synopsis: Over 300,000 participants; every one of them traced back to African pre-historic times. I suggest you explore the site thoroughly...lots of info there.

.
Okay Twom, so what is Stone Throwing Ape theory? I asked and you changed the subject. Can't answer can ya? Oh BTW, since other than sub-Saharan races have between 2% to 4% Neanderthal genetics it is statistically impossible for hundreds of those 300,000 test subjects to NOT have Neanderthal mtDNA. IOWs, a common female ancestor being Erectus or in other words at least 500ky differentiation between peoples. On that alone it proves the test results of OOA is a total fraud. No different than AGW hockey stick leaving out the Medieval warming.
.
On this particular subject, STAT and MRH make sense and not much of the rest. Especially strict adherents to the religion of science and their peer reviewed high priests that get their funding from bankster controlled governments.
.
With that said, if STAT and MRH aren't taught as mainline evolution, don't each it at all. The fictitious mainline evolution is false science religious propaganda, no different than AGW. Both are pushed for the benefit of TPTB.
.
If you truly can't come to grips with that, you are a mind acontrolled character in Orwell's 1984

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9...

[Maccoat]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Okay Twom, so what is Stone Throwing Ape theory? I asked and you changed the subject. Can't answer can ya? Oh BTW, since other than sub-Saharan races have between 2% to 4% Neanderthal genetics it is statistically impossible for hundreds of those 300,000 test subjects to NOT have Neanderthal mtDNA. IOWs, a common female ancestor being Erectus or in other words at least 500ky differentiation between peoples. On that alone it proves the test results of OOA is a total fraud. No different than AGW hockey stick leaving out the Medieval warming.
.
On this particular subject, STAT and MRH make sense and not much of the rest. Especially strict adherents to the religion of science and their peer reviewed high priests that get their funding from bankster controlled governments.
.
With that said, if STAT and MRH aren't taught as mainline evolution, don't each it at all. The fictitious mainline evolution is false science religious propaganda, no different than AGW. Both are pushed for the benefit of TPTB.
.
If you truly can't come to grips with that, you are a mind acontrolled character in Orwell's 1984
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9...

It is a grand CONSPERACY!!!!!

[thewordofme]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Okay Twom, so what is Stone Throwing Ape theory? I asked and you changed the subject. Can't answer can ya? Oh BTW, since other than sub-Saharan races have between 2% to 4% Neanderthal genetics it is statistically impossible for hundreds of those 300,000 test subjects to NOT have Neanderthal mtDNA. IOWs, a common female ancestor being Erectus or in other words at least 500ky differentiation between peoples. On that alone it proves the test results of OOA is a total fraud. No different than AGW hockey stick leaving out the Medieval warming.
.
On this particular subject, STAT and MRH make sense and not much of the rest. Especially strict adherents to the religion of science and their peer reviewed high priests that get their funding from bankster controlled governments.
.
With that said, if STAT and MRH aren't taught as mainline evolution, don't each it at all. The fictitious mainline evolution is false science religious propaganda, no different than AGW. Both are pushed for the benefit of TPTB.
.
If you truly can't come to grips with that, you are a mind acontrolled character in Orwell's 1984
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/9...

Got lots of hate bottled up there do you?

What are your qualifications to judge evolution?

Do you hold degrees in any science pertaining to evolution?

I have not heard of your STAT (stone throwing...yada yada)

What is it with OOA and you...you seem positively furious about it.

[thewordofme]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
.
Oh BTW, since other than sub-Saharan races have between 2% to 4% Neanderthal genetics it is statistically impossible for hundreds of those 300,000 test subjects to NOT have Neanderthal mtDNA. IOWs, a common female ancestor being Erectus or in other words at least 500ky differentiation between peoples. On that alone it proves the test results of OOA is a total fraud. No different than AGW hockey stick leaving out the Medieval warming.

.
.
You actually believe that National Geographic and IBM are pulling a prank or conspiring to deceive scientists/the public/the government??
.
What advantage will they attain by this so called deception?

[LowellGuy]

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Good lord , you have no idea of how stupid you are. Every assumption you make is wrong. I was raised in the NY metro area and in a good suburban area where professionals rail commuted to Manhattan.
All the standard evo theories are so chock full of holes that its ridiculous. IMO one of the few solid theories is stone throwing aped theory and only a few professional anthropologist and myself are even aware of it. No, evolution is used a political weapon and in the way it is expressed it is complete crap because much of it such as OOA is a total and utter lie and used for a political purpose.
Admit it, you are clueless on stone throwing ape theory. If not give a definition. If you can't explain that elegant theory, in plain words, then you should keep your piehole shut on this subject. Just like the rest of the hot air douchebags posting here.
As far as I'm concerned you people that are pushing evolution in the class room are the fundies, totally unconscious.
IMHO, you're all a bunch of 1984 Orwellian twits just having your pleasurable two minutes of group hate. You're just all trained Pavlovian parrots.

Here, Dave. Jack off to this: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i2e1...

After you've wiped yourself off, understand that the whole thing is an argument from incredulity.

Whether a topic ruffles the feathers of people who don't understand the topic in the first place is irrelevant. We don't rely upon the opinions and understanding of the most ignorant among us on a given subject to determine what is and is not valid science. If we did that, your "stop teaching it because it pisses people off" idea would have legs. Fortunately, most people want to counteract that thick cloud of stupid that hangs over certain parts of the country by preventing their stupid from being forced upon other people's kids. Unfortunately, they can't stop people from pushing their own stupid onto their own kids. At any rate, what you're proposing is allowing the scientifically ignorant to determine what should or should not be deemed valid science. And, once you've done that, why shouldn't they be given carte blanche to determine what is valid mathematics, history, or any other subject? When they start pissing and moaning about heliocentrism, are you going to recommend we stop teaching that, too?

Why not, instead of letting their bitching dictate what is taught (or not taught), make a clear delineation between what they want to believe and what is science?

Dave, I have a serious question to ask you: what is the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?

Second serious question: is evolution part of abiogenesis, is abiogenesis part of evolution, or neither?

And, now, please watch this: http://www.bayanimills.com/2012/05/26/creatio...

Did you see the bit about the populations splitting, changing, and resulting in more and more different organisms? Tell us, in your own words, why you think such a thing is impossible. Then, explain to us what ERVs are and why their location in the DNA of various organisms just happens to exactly follow the nested hierarchy that the theory of evolution predicts.

And, remind us how the people who found Tiktaalik decided where and how deep to dig. Did their methodology successfully yield the results they sought?

For being completely full of shit, the theory of evolution sure seems to be doing ok for itself. Don't bother learning too much about it, though. Engineers generally just know they don't like it. It's not that you're stupid, it's that you deem yourselves too important in the grand scheme of things. You're not that important. And, we don't need a mega-engineer to make life. Life is chemistry. If you need an engineer to make electrons work, then the universe is colossally fucked.

[KittenKoder]

Toomis wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not a creaTard as you put it and I'll tell ya, the one with a lack of talent is the one in your mirror. Gotta run dike, enjoy your Fukushima hot particles. Make sure to breath deeply when out doors and eat plenty of Pacific seafood while you're at it. Enjoy your misery, because it's all you have.

Aw, are you jealous that we have fresh food up here and you don't?

[Chimney1]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
As you can see, oftentimes museums intentionally mislead the public about evolutionary evidence as is so clearly demonstrated in the following articles regarding Neanderthal children:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

There is NO evidence of an attempt to mislead even in your articles. There may have been a tendency to exaggerate the "non-humanness" of the skulls based on a predisposition due to the idea that the Neanderthals "had to be" more apelike. But the differences are minor. Scientists have long said that the tendency to treat Neanderthals like they hulking brutes is nothing more than a popular misconception.

Firstly, they are not our direct ancestors (except for the slight infusion of some genes into non-African populations). They were a separate branch that evolved from a common earlier hominid. This was not even known back in 1909 or 1936, which is the research your writer is comparing his measurements to.

Secondly, there remain very real differences in Neanderthal skull and brain anatomy as compared to our own. Even when you minimise the differences, they are real. So isn't your writer now guilty of bias in the opposite direction to that which he is complaining about.

I would love to see you try to do the same thing with Heideburgensis, Erectus, Ergaster, or Habilis skulls which show a continuum of change that led to both us and the Neanderthals.

In any case, the minor differences in interpretation pointed out by your writer are nothing compared to the wholesale trashing of real science we see in your YEC fantasy parks. And there was definitely no attempt to mislead. We leave that to your team.

[Chimney1]

That will probably be my last post for a while. I am going to be busy over the next few weeks and wish you all well wherever you are (and whatever you think).

[Urban Cowboy]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is NO evidence of an attempt to mislead even in your articles. There may have been a tendency to exaggerate the "non-humanness" of the skulls based on a predisposition due to the idea that the Neanderthals "had to be" more apelike. But the differences are minor. Scientists have long said that the tendency to treat Neanderthals like they hulking brutes is nothing more than a popular misconception.
Firstly, they are not our direct ancestors (except for the slight infusion of some genes into non-African populations). They were a separate branch that evolved from a common earlier hominid. This was not even known back in 1909 or 1936, which is the research your writer is comparing his measurements to.
Secondly, there remain very real differences in Neanderthal skull and brain anatomy as compared to our own. Even when you minimise the differences, they are real. So isn't your writer now guilty of bias in the opposite direction to that which he is complaining about.
I would love to see you try to do the same thing with Heideburgensis, Erectus, Ergaster, or Habilis skulls which show a continuum of change that led to both us and the Neanderthals.
In any case, the minor differences in interpretation pointed out by your writer are nothing compared to the wholesale trashing of real science we see in your YEC fantasy parks. And there was definitely no attempt to mislead. We leave that to your team.

In the case of H.Erectus, as was the case with Neanderthal, these were just variations in people like you and me. All the fossils ever found always turn out to be either fully apes or fully people. Nota Bene - Human and ape fossils are your weakest "evidence" for naturalistic vertical evolution (or macroevolution or transmutation of species or universal common ancestor; whatever you like to call it, it never happened!)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

[Urban Cowboy]

Although the list of evolution frauds would be too long to enumerate here, it is clear that most, if not all, of the evolutionary claims regarding ape to man progressions are pure fabrication. The only honest ones ever presented are either man or ape because that's the only two classifications ever found, and I don't see that ever changing. Isn't it time to ditch this stupid theory?

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_...

[Urban Cowboy]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Here, Dave. Jack off to this: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i2e1...
After you've wiped yourself off, understand that the whole thing is an argument from incredulity.
Whether a topic ruffles the feathers of people who don't understand the topic in the first place is irrelevant. We don't rely upon the opinions and understanding of the most ignorant among us on a given subject to determine what is and is not valid science. If we did that, your "stop teaching it because it pisses people off" idea would have legs. Fortunately, most people want to counteract that thick cloud of stupid that hangs over certain parts of the country by preventing their stupid from being forced upon other people's kids. Unfortunately, they can't stop people from pushing their own stupid onto their own kids. At any rate, what you're proposing is allowing the scientifically ignorant to determine what should or should not be deemed valid science. And, once you've done that, why shouldn't they be given carte blanche to determine what is valid mathematics, history, or any other subject? When they start pissing and moaning about heliocentrism, are you going to recommend we stop teaching that, too?
Why not, instead of letting their bitching dictate what is taught (or not taught), make a clear delineation between what they want to believe and what is science?
Dave, I have a serious question to ask you: what is the difference between abiogenesis and evolution?
Second serious question: is evolution part of abiogenesis, is abiogenesis part of evolution, or neither?
And, now, please watch this: http://www.bayanimills.com/2012/05/26/creatio...
Did you see the bit about the populations splitting, changing, and resulting in more and more different organisms? Tell us, in your own words, why you think such a thing is impossible. Then, explain to us what ERVs are and why their location in the DNA of various organisms just happens to exactly follow the nested hierarchy that the theory of evolution predicts.
And, remind us how the people who found Tiktaalik decided where and how deep to dig. Did their methodology successfully yield the results they sought?
For being completely full of shit, the theory of evolution sure seems to be doing ok for itself. Don't bother learning too much about it, though. Engineers generally just know they don't like it. It's not that you're stupid, it's that you deem yourselves too important in the grand scheme of things. You're not that important. And, we don't need a mega-engineer to make life. Life is chemistry. If you need an engineer to make electrons work, then the universe is colossally fucked.

All that was was a whole bunch of arguing from authority - a logical fallacy - and then a whole lot of strawmen - and then a whole lot of ad hominem attack.

But you're right, you can't possible argue on first origins of life because you got nothing, just like you got nothing regarding universe origins. "Not part of evolution!" Guy, that's pathetic. You should at least be willy to discuss it. You would be much better served sticking to something very specific. You mentioned ERVs. That's good, we can discuss that. And the idea that only darwinbots are biology majors is bull. So far, everyone I've talked to on campus is either undecided or doesn't accept it outright. I can't wait to speak to the professor. But first I have a bear of a Biology & Chemistry CLEP exam to get through.(There's more to it than I thought!)

[Urban Cowboy]

Chimney1 wrote:

Secondly, there remain very real differences in Neanderthal skull and brain anatomy as compared to our own. Even when you minimise the differences, they are real.

So show me the evidence. Show these "real" differences in brain anatomy. Prove it. Reference please? Never mind, you don't have any.

[Urban Cowboy]

"Most creationists conclude that H. Heidelbergensis (like Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis) are merely variants of modern man. The physical features do not offer significant proof of being far removed from modern humans. In fact, recent research shows that their ear structures were very similar to modern humans', and were well within the range for human hearing."

http://creationwiki.org/Homo_heidelbergensis

Not really worth investigating any more than that.

[Maccoat]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
So show me the evidence. Show these "real" differences in brain anatomy. Prove it. Reference please? Never mind, you don't have any.

We had bigger brains.

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
In the case of H.Erectus, as was the case with Neanderthal, these were just variations in people like you and me. All the fossils ever found always turn out to be either fully apes or fully people. Nota Bene - Human and ape fossils are your weakest "evidence" for naturalistic vertical evolution (or macroevolution or transmutation of species or universal common ancestor; whatever you like to call it, it never happened!)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

I've got to say...it was spectacular the way you used AIG, an outfit famous for misrepresenting and distorting science, to try to demonstrate how ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC MUSEUMS allegedly misrepresent and distort science. Yeah, I know this isn't the post you did it in, but damn. There's nothing more hypocritical that you could have possibly posted. Their entire organization is run around the premise that no matter what evidence we find, the Bible is true. http://youtu.be/z1xUiuZvUuw

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

"Most creationists conclude that H. Heidelbergensis (like Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis) are merely variants of modern man. The physical features do not offer significant proof of being far removed from modern humans. In fact, recent research shows that their ear structures were very similar to modern humans', and were well within the range for human hearing."
http://creationwiki.org/Homo_heidelbergensis
Not really worth investigating any more than that.

Yes, because what creationists (people who have declared that they don't care what the evidence demonstrates, and that they're willing to misrepresent science as much as they need to in order to support their Bible stories) "conclude" about anything should matter to anybody.

Why don't we care what plumbers think about the IMF? Why don't we care what 2 year olds think about emerging markets and their place in the global economy?

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
All that was was a whole bunch of arguing from authority - a logical fallacy -

Lie. There isn't a single argument from authority in my post.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

and then a whole lot of strawmen -

Lie. There isn't a single strawman argument in my post.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

and then a whole lot of ad hominem attack.

Lie. There isn't a single ad hominem attack in my post.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

But you're right, you can't possible argue on first origins of life because you got nothing, just like you got nothing regarding universe origins.

Oh, well, since YOU say so...

Urban Cowboy wrote:

"Not part of evolution!" Guy, that's pathetic. You should at least be willy to discuss it.

Nobody said we're unwilling to discuss it. What we all say is that an understanding of abiogenesis is irrelevant to understanding evolutionary theory. A discussion about the theory of evolution has as much to do with abiogenesis as a discussion about fluid dynamics has to do with the formation of electrons at the beginning of the universe.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

You would be much better served sticking to something very specific. You mentioned ERVs. That's good, we can discuss that.

I did stick to science. Facts. Actual observed phenomena. Events that actually took place and were documented AS THEY OCCURRED.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

And the idea that only darwinbots are biology majors is bull. So far, everyone I've talked to on campus is either undecided or doesn't accept it outright.

I won't accept your claim until you provide evidence. Film these people having this conversation with you. Have them document that they are biology majors. Then, have them release their rights to their image and speech so you can post it on youtube.com . Then, tell us the URL to find it. Then, show us how many people you asked, and how that compares to the number of people who are bio majors at that school, and whether and why that is a representative sample.

Yep, I'm going to hold you to scientific standards. Your say-so regarding anecdotal evidence is worthless. It's of zero value. EVIDENCE OR GTFO. Welcome to science, bitch.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

I can't wait to speak to the professor. But first I have a bear of a Biology & Chemistry CLEP exam to get through.(There's more to it than I thought!)

Please film that discussion and post it for us to watch.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
In the case of H.Erectus, as was the case with Neanderthal, these were just variations in people like you and me. All the fossils ever found always turn out to be either fully apes or fully people. Nota Bene - Human and ape fossils are your weakest "evidence" for naturalistic vertical evolution (or macroevolution or transmutation of species or universal common ancestor; whatever you like to call it, it never happened!)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...

If Lubenow's so smart, how come he can't get a better job than teaching Creationism at a Creationism college, a vassal of ICR and accredited by ICR?

Furthermore, if Lubenow dates the most recent of Homo erectus fossils to 15,000 years before present, why is he not dismissed as a heretic by Answers in Gibberish which claims the universe was created in 4004 BC. Are the fundies getting desperate?

[Dave]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Got lots of hate bottled up there do you?

Straw man

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
What are your qualifications to judge evolution?

Oh the science as religion argument. Are you a science priest test. That's pretty sick. I'm an aerospace engineer so call me a science monk of you want. In any case I have to design structures that work, or people die. How do you measure up to that Twom?

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you hold degrees in any science pertaining to evolution?

haha the religion of science argument again haha

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not heard of your STAT (stone throwing...yada yada)
What is it with OOA and you...you seem positively furious about it.

.
I don't like lies, especially olitically correct lies and I don't think children should be taught lies. Oh BTW, can't get yer brain wrapped around STAT can you. I guess that you aren't very innovative and probably fairly dull. You strike me a statist type, a parrot. Probably landed a cushy job in a college somewhere and just push the agenda.
.
Why do you fear reality so? I guess you just can't hack the real world and need to latch to something for the ride. Looks like pushing the OOA big lie agenda is your ticket to a cushy existence.
.
Yep yer a true religionist. If you were around 500 years ago or so you would be burning witches. Just as long as the ride was cushy, right sociopath?