Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[BreezeWood]

The Truth is NOT a Poll.
It's a FACT.
The less people that know facts leads to ******* society and leaders like our last
(and morons like James Bond)

The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. Human evolution isn't a fact. Even Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor. That kills it right there. And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you? Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?

.

there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.

.
the metaphysical may produce an offspring developed over may generations as a code before employing the final product -
.

.
as the above example of a being transforming themselves into a new physiological creature without the evidence the transformation took place. the same for how a human may have come into being in a single instance and that of other species.

parent to new species in a single transformation where there is no physical evidence provided as the process is unique and timely, programed over decades in the making.
.
.
no valid evidence for a common ancestor - parent to new species in a single transformation.


wakeup bond and there are other more obvious flaws to the desert religions worth valid consideration over this one.

 

[james bond]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.

Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today? Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist. Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.

With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes. Animals have different eyes. For example, my dogs have night vision in low light. Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes. With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs." We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals. The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.

What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?

Yes, we can, in fact, say it is an organ that evolved like all the other organs. And small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on more readily.

A dog with better night vision would be a better predator. Therefore, it would eat better, be stronger, and attract more mates.

What I was looking for was what you explained of simple going to more complex. We had the finch beaks of the Galapalagos which I doubt Darwin drew. Honestly, I see that drawing everywhere, but do not know if Darwin actually was able to draw like that.

Anyway, you describe the small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on as those which receive it will better survive. Those which don't will likely die. I believe that. There is something else that you are leaving out. What do you think that is?

None of these animals, including humans, went from simple to complex when it came to their eyes and ears. They already had this vision or hearing. Otherwise, we would have those drawings.

Furthermore, we just had a Lucy and it takes two to tango. None of what happened afterward is explained.

 

[james bond]

Can you just fark yourself now?

If I could do that, I wouldn't waste my time trying to educate farm animals.

But how could a chimpanzee become a human? That isn't what the mysterious common ancestor is. I was looking for that explanation. If Lucy or this common ancestor existed, then would we have more information on it? Wouldn't I expect to see its chromosomes?

Again, if I said that humans came from chimpanzees, then I'd be ripped to shreds but that's what you did. What has a chimpanzee have to do with humans? Wasn't that my argument for Lucy not being a common ancestor? I like to see some continuity from the evolutionists.

Instead, can you admit that you have not chromosome chart for a common ancestor?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

Am I to understand you're claiming that 85 - 90% of Americans don't believe in evolution?

 

[james bond]

it's just a hypothesis

Evolution is not just a hypothesis you dishonest retard. It's a theory. Ignorant people like you rarely understand the difference though.

I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.

The Bible was never intended as a science or history book. Why teach morality tales as science?

You're right, the Bible is not a science book but it is a history book. However, we find science backs up the Bible. Anyway, I don't want to argue about teaching the Bible and creation science as science. I admit that is a dead curriculum. I don't think ID can be taught as science either as it was demonstrated to not be scientific. However, the Bible and creation science can be taught as religion in public schools. I think that is a worthy pursuit and have put some wheels in motion outside this forum.

 

[james bond]

Sure, why teach a theory that may not be true and the majority of Americans (85% to 90%) do not believe?

Am I to understand you're claiming that 85 - 90% of Americans don't believe in evolution?

Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being. 60% of Americans believe in evolution.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Am I to understand you're claiming that 85 - 90% of Americans don't believe in evolution?

Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being. 60% of Americans believe in evolution.

So 85 - 90% of Americans do not reject evolution then. Glad we cleared that up

 

[noonereal]

she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out

there are not two sides on this

there is science and there is Trumpist lunacy

 

[fncceo]

Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being.

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

In fact, understanding just how complex our Universe really is gives most of us a greater appreciation of the power that set it all into motion.

 

[noonereal]

Polls show 85% - 90% of Americans believe in God or a higher spiritual being.

scary to be human, i agree

fuckin moronic species

 

[noonereal]

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

true, but it sure as hell is not reasonable to believe both and it's also highly contradictory

 

[noonereal]

I recognize these guys, they were all at the Trump rally.

 

[fncceo]

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

true, but it sure as hell is not reasonable to believe both and it's also highly contradictory

How so?

 

[noonereal]

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

true, but it sure as hell is not reasonable to believe both and it's also highly contradictory

How so?

dude, please

i am not gonna play this stupid game

I'll put you down as part of the moronic majority.

oh, and God Bless you

 

[fncceo]

fuckin moronic species

In fact, Humans are a magnificent species, the culmination of more than a Billion years of evolution and they may, some day, turn out to be one of the per-eminent species in our Galaxy.

 

[noonereal]

fuckin moronic species

In fact, Humans are a magnificent species, the culmination of more than a Billion years of evolution and they may, some day, turn out to be one of the per-eminent species in our Galaxy.

I swear, I just burst into spontaneous laughter reading this.

Dude, we are a failed species.

 

[fncceo]

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

true, but it sure as hell is not reasonable to believe both and it's also highly contradictory

How so?

dude, please

i am not gonna play this stupid game

I'll put you down as part of the moronic majority.

oh, and God Bless you

It's not a game at all.

We can believe that G-d created each creature on Earth by hand, even the billion who has subsequently gone extinct OR we can believe that the same G-d, with a thorough knowledge of molecular biology, put events into place nearly 14 Billion years ago that has led to where we are now.

And, because the mind of G-d is ineffable, we don't know where our Universe will end up. Only G-d knows, and he doesn't appear to be telling.

 

[fncceo]

Dude, we are a failed species.

Don't judge the rest of us by your failed life...

 

[WinterBorn]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.

Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today? Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist. Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.

With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes. Animals have different eyes. For example, my dogs have night vision in low light. Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes. With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs." We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals. The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.

What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?

Yes, we can, in fact, say it is an organ that evolved like all the other organs. And small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on more readily.

A dog with better night vision would be a better predator. Therefore, it would eat better, be stronger, and attract more mates.

What I was looking for was what you explained of simple going to more complex. We had the finch beaks of the Galapalagos which I doubt Darwin drew. Honestly, I see that drawing everywhere, but do not know if Darwin actually was able to draw like that.

Anyway, you describe the small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on as those which receive it will better survive. Those which don't will likely die. I believe that. There is something else that you are leaving out. What do you think that is?

None of these animals, including humans, went from simple to complex when it came to their eyes and ears. They already had this vision or hearing. Otherwise, we would have those drawings.

Furthermore, we just had a Lucy and it takes two to tango. None of what happened afterward is explained.

Yes, higher animals all have complex eyes. That does not change the fact there is a known progression from simple eye spots to complex eyes.

 

[noonereal]

There is absolutely nothing that make belief in G-d and an understanding of science mutually exclusive.

true, but it sure as hell is not reasonable to believe both and it's also highly contradictory

How so?

dude, please

i am not gonna play this stupid game

I'll put you down as part of the moronic majority.

oh, and God Bless you

It's not a game at all.

We can believe that G-d created each creature on Earth by hand, even the billion who has subsequently gone extinct OR we can believe that the same G-d, with a thorough knowledge of molecular biology, put events into place nearly 14 Billion years ago that has led to where we are now.

And, because the mind of G-d is ineffable, we don't know where our Universe will end up. Only G-d knows, and he doesn't appear to be telling.

honest, I laughed out loud again. This is moronic shit. God knows I speak the truth.