Should evolution be taught in high school?

[Psychology]

How many times did clusters of people leave Africa? How can one prove or disprove such? Just because our ancestors came from Africa, that doesn't mean that there weren't several or even 100 waves leaving for new frontiers, before and after Toba's eruption.

Science sure does like to play dumb when it suits it's purpose.

[Mugwump]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
No, let's keep this simple and only worry about actual population counts. OK?

Sorry - you are joking !!!!!!!!!!

Keep it simple if you want - but thought you were coming up with a useful formula

Let's take a hypothetical progression ( each number represents pop after 100 years)

50 60 70 10 (*) 15 20 25 30 35 45 50

* representing some natural population diminishing catastrophe

Now if we were just to take the first and last numbers and project forward, say 5 centuries what would you say the population would be ????

Can you not see why not even addressing the question of static growth/birth rates makes your whole methodogy worthless ???

Serious UC - you are intelligent, understand you good with numbers -PLEASE don't say you can not see the significance of my question.

[Psychology]

if you can't explain the basics, you don't have a chance to explain the rest. Oops, I'm sorry, children wouldn't realize that.

Was herodotus also keeping track of china, Russia and America? How about south America?
How many times did clusters of people leave Africa? How can one prove or disprove such? Just because our ancestors came from Africa, that doesn't mean that there weren't several or even 100 waves leaving for new frontiers, before and after Toba's eruption.

Science sure does like to play dumb when it suits it's purpose.

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
What's BS is you always quitting at the beginning! I invite you repeatedly to discuss something and immediately you fly off the handle.
Oh I see what's going on here, you can't debate without your little copy paste from TalkOrigins, a site written and compiled by foam at the mouth darwin zombee fanatics.

I just love how you say you don't have time for bs crank sites, then go read your creationist magazines. How can you not appreciate the sweet, delicious irony?

[LowellGuy]

Psychology wrote:

if you can't explain the basics, you don't have a chance to explain the rest. Oops, I'm sorry, children wouldn't realize that.
Was herodotus also keeping track of china, Russia and America? How about south America?
How many times did clusters of people leave Africa? How can one prove or disprove such? Just because our ancestors came from Africa, that doesn't mean that there weren't several or even 100 waves leaving for new frontiers, before and after Toba's eruption.
Science sure does like to play dumb when it suits it's purpose.

Please refresh my memory...does the gravitational pull of a Dremel tool's tip increase when it's turned on, and, if so, by how much? Thanks in advance for ever answering this question that I've asked at last half a dozen times over the last week.

[LowellGuy]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
None, but your already knew that.

All of science is built upon a foundation of uniformitarianism. You have a problem with the idea of uniformitarianism. Therefore, you have a problem with all of science.

Now, answer the question again: which fields of science don't you have a problem with?

Remember, you said you don't lie. Your problem with uniformitarianism requires you to say you have a problem with ALL of science. If you give an answer of anything less than all, you're lying.

Seriously, it's disappointing that you can't see the logical consequences of the things you say even after they're demonstrated to you. I understand that it's a psychological defense mechanism, but it's sad.

[Urban Cowboy]

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry - you are joking !!!!!!!!!!
Keep it simple if you want - but thought you were coming up with a useful formula
Let's take a hypothetical progression ( each number represents pop after 100 years)
50 60 70 10 (*) 15 20 25 30 35 45 50
* representing some natural population diminishing catastrophe
Now if we were just to take the first and last numbers and project forward, say 5 centuries what would you say the population would be ????
Can you not see why not even addressing the question of static growth/birth rates makes your whole methodogy worthless ???
Serious UC - you are intelligent, understand you good with numbers -PLEASE don't say you can not see the significance of my question.

All that doesn't matter. All that matters is the resulting population counts. This is just an honest attempt at reviewing the observed, measured, recorded, agreed, historical world population figures and then using mathematical data modeling techniques and regression analysis to determine which worldview is the better fit. We can simply use Excel spreadsheet to execute the function and plot the data. Now as I am still not sure you are up to this, I'll ask you again, are you OK with 7 billion for current world population? OK with the 50 million world population at the time of the Roman Empire? Why don't you supply the mid point around 1000 AD and 500 AD and 1500 AD. Shouldn't you be contributing to this?

[Urban Cowboy]

Would you be OK with this data set?

http://worldhistorysite.com/population.html

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>All of science is built upon a foundation of uniformitarianism. You have a problem with the idea of uniformitarianism. Therefore, you have a problem with all of science.

Now, answer the question again: which fields of science don't you have a problem with?

Remember, you said you don't lie. Your problem with uniformitarianism requires you to say you have a problem with ALL of science. If you give an answer of anything less than all, you're lying.

Seriously, it's disappointing that you can't see the logical consequences of the things you say even after they're demonstrated to you. I understand that it's a psychological defense mechanism, but it's sad.

So you agree there is uniformity in nature, then?

[Urban Cowboy]

The hackneyed Darwinist logic equivocates the observed limited variation and selection in nature with the non-observed inferred origin of life from non-life, and the non-observed inferred derivation of all living things from a common ancestor.

No darwin-apologist has ever been able to show that limited changes in populations of living things, and the origin of new species, necessarily implies unlimited change in living things. And no darwin-apologist has ever been able to show how observed downhill changes will somehow eventually accumulate into uphill changes if we wait for millions of years.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

The hackneyed Darwinist logic equivocates the observed limited variation and selection in nature with the non-observed inferred origin of life from non-life, and the non-observed inferred derivation of all living things from a common ancestor.
No darwin-apologist has ever been able to show that limited changes in populations of living things, and the origin of new species, necessarily implies unlimited change in living things. And no darwin-apologist has ever been able to show how observed downhill changes will somehow eventually accumulate into uphill changes if we wait for millions of years.

Yes, they have been able to show changes in populations of living things. They have done so with bacteria in the laboratory. You can keep repeating this lie and we can keep pointing out that it is a lie. Second, the evolution of a new species in no way requires unlimited change. There is a noticeable LACK of change between different species. There is very little difference between human and chimp DNA only a couple of percentage points or two. And once again you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

How long will you keep up your silly boardist arguments?

[Urban Cowboy]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they have been able to show changes in populations of living things. They have done so with bacteria in the laboratory. You can keep repeating this lie and we can keep pointing out that it is a lie. Second, the evolution of a new species in no way requires unlimited change. There is a noticeable LACK of change between different species. There is very little difference between human and chimp DNA only a couple of percentage points or two. And once again you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution.
How long will you keep up your silly boardist arguments?

And the bacteria is still the same kind of bacteria after thousands of generations isn't it? How long will you keep up your equivocating and finally admit one does not equate with the other? That is the big lie of evolution.

[Urban Cowboy]

And you can't even use that baloney that we are 98% chimp DNA because that's been refuted by your own secular science and not only that, human protein is 80% percent different than chimp. You need to keep up with your phony selling points.

[Urban Cowboy]

And abiogenesis IS certainly part of evolution and biology. It's covered in any decent college biology text book. You repeating that lie should be red flag to all.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
And the bacteria is still the same kind of bacteria after thousands of generations isn't it? How long will you keep up your equivocating and finally admit one does not equate with the other? That is the big lie of evolution.

No, it is a different kind of bacteria. Unless you man the nonsensical meaningless biblical definition of kind. Until you find a logical definition of "kind" you cannot really use it in a debate. Of course creationists won't do that because as soon as they do evolutionists can use it to show how creationist beliefs are false.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

And abiogenesis IS certainly part of evolution and biology. It's covered in any decent college biology text book. You repeating that lie should be red flag to all.

Again no. It is barely mentioned. Gravity may be mentioned in a paper on evolution, that does not mean that gravity is part of evolutionary theory. You don't need to understand Einstein's theory of gravitation to understand the theory of evolution, in the same vein a theory of abiogenesis is not needed to understand the theory of evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

And you can't even use that baloney that we are 98% chimp DNA because that's been refuted by your own secular science and not only that, human protein is 80% percent different than chimp. You need to keep up with your phony selling points.

Again wrong. There are differences in 80% of our proteins, that does not mean they are "eighty percent different". You are making one logical error after another.

Of course how that difference is measured may vary. The most recent article I can find says that we share 96% of DNA, so my 98% remark was out of date:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/...

[quote]A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.[/quote]

Please note that by the methodology that they used we are 10 times closer to chimps than rats are to mice. Your obsession with "kinds" is tied into your belief in the Noah's Ark myth. If you claim that man and chimps are different kinds then you effectively raise the number of animals needed on the Ark to millions.

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>No, it is a different kind of bacteria. Unless you man the nonsensical meaningless biblical definition of kind. Until you find a logical definition of "kind" you cannot really use it in a debate. Of course creationists won't do that because as soon as they do evolutionists can use it to show how creationist beliefs are false.

Logical definition, huh?

You believe there are Laws of Logic, right?

[Subduction Zone]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Logical definition, huh?
You believe there are Laws of Logic, right?

More properly they are called the Laws of Thought, but sure, why not. Let's see where this name caller will go to next.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

The hackneyed Darwinist logic equivocates the observed limited variation and selection in nature with the non-observed inferred origin of life from non-life, and the non-observed inferred derivation of all living things from a common ancestor.
No darwin-apologist has ever been able to show that limited changes in populations of living things, and the origin of new species, necessarily implies unlimited change in living things. And no darwin-apologist has ever been able to show how observed downhill changes will somehow eventually accumulate into uphill changes if we wait for millions of years.

Gibberish.