Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[james bond]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

There are no intermediate fossils. Let's stick to human evolution. Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created. It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on. The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on. However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen. As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

(Satan has the power of death, remember?)

 

[surada]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

There are no intermediate fossils. Let's stick to human evolution. Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created. It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on. The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on. However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen. As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

 

[james bond]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.

Who are you to tell me what to do? You are such a little man. Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity. However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature. Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years. So what did your private school do for you?

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

At least, you present something. I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie? It's like this. One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches. However, one does not have to believe in it. There is no common ancestor. Lucy was a chimp. Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities. Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists. Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real. It's like we have potential reality and actual reality. We still have no monkeys that are bipedal. The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time. Location would show just where the poor creature died. No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this). No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe. My question to you is why not if human evolution? You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true. We had the adult chicken before the egg.

 

[DudleySmith]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

I agree, as long as they keep the 'evolution is fact' nonsense out of schools without any rebutting alternate opinions.

 

[DudleySmith]

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

You need to get a good natural science book that discusses evolution before embarrassing yourself anymore in claiming you know what a theory is or is not.

Why bother? there is no empirical chain of evidence for any form of life that proves evolution is a fact, so you should take a science course and learn about empirical methodologies before spamming threads with cult rubbish.

That’s exactly right. There is no evidence that literally establishes any thing in science as an absolute fact. You’ve just defined a theory. Absolutely no form of problem solving can do that. It’s why science ALWAYS includes a level of certainty based upon a statistical inference. That is much more reliable then guess. Science uses consensus then developers a level of certainty from it.

Anyone who has a better way of providing understanding in problem solving has failed since the scientific method was developed and i improved upon. I highly recommend you research the “ scientific method” as well. what's your alternative to consensus of the conclusions by the majority of the smartest and most dedicated people doing the research ? Is an alternate....just listening to one guys opinion over every research facility in the world ?

You still don't understand empiricism. Your recommendation are something you haven't done yourself. 'Consensus' isn't proof, and as for 'the smartest and most dedicated people doing research' odds are over a third of them used fake data in their doctoral theses and over half of them suffer from a mental illness, as found in studies by other 'smartest and most dedicated people'. Also, the 'smartest and most dedicated' are easily led to stupid lies and beliefs, as pointed out in this article:


The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat rather than spherical.[1][2]

The earliest clear documentation of the idea of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). The belief was widespread in the Greek world when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of Earth around 240 BC. This knowledge spread with Greek influence such that during the Early Middle Ages (~600–1000 AD), most European and Middle Eastern scholars espoused Earth's sphericity.[3] Belief in a flat Earth among educated Europeans was almost nonexistent from the Late Middle Ages onward, though fanciful depictions appear in art, such as the exterior panels of Hieronymus Bosch's famous triptych The Garden of Earthly Delights, in which a disc-shaped Earth is shown floating inside a transparent sphere.[4]

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[6]

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.[2][7][8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#cite_note-FOOTNOTERussell1993-8

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So much for scientists always telling the truth; scientists will lie about anything to anyone, if it suits their personal agendas, helps get them paid for selling toothpaste or pills, whatever, so please, don't be dumb and claim they're objective. The hilarious thing about the better ID theories is there is evidence for them while there is still zero evidence for evolution.

Feel free to collect your $10 million with all that proof.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

There are no intermediate fossils. Let's stick to human evolution. Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created. It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on. The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on. However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen. As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

(Satan has the power of death, remember?)

There are a great many examples of intermediate fossils. Not having a science vocabulary, you might want to understand some common terms and definitions.

If you would like more, raise your hand and ask.

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
   
   Intermediate fossils include
   • Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
   • Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
   • Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
   • Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
   • A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
   • A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
2. And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
   
   
3. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
   
   
4. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
   • Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
   • The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
   • A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
   • Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

www.talkorigins.org

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

CC202: Transitional fossils and direct ancestry

www.talkorigins.org

“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.

 

[Hollie]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

I agree, as long as they keep the 'evolution is fact' nonsense out of schools without any rebutting alternate opinions.

Biological evolution is a fact. What alternate opinion is there?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job. I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work. I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist. One has to have some idea of history. Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young. It's more for older adults or those interested in it. I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites. What education does is open the world to people. It gave me a good life and I retired early. My kids are grown now and are finishing up college. If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty. We may see the same things, but think differently about it. That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion. We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.

Skills like public speaking, MS Office...Excel, Word and PowerPoint, negotiation, stats, how to calculate a mortgage or car payment, etc. are much more valuable skills.

 

[BreezeWood]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.

Who are you to tell me what to do? You are such a little man. Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity. However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature. Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years. So what did your private school do for you?

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

At least, you present something. I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie? It's like this. One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches. However, one does not have to believe in it. There is no common ancestor. Lucy was a chimp. Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities. Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists. Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real. It's like we have potential reality and actual reality. We still have no monkeys that are bipedal. The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time. Location would show just where the poor creature died. No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this). No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe. My question to you is why not if human evolution? You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true. We had the adult chicken before the egg.

.

You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true.

.
what exactly does your genesis say that does not correspond to the evolution of physiology and its spiritual content - that can be corroborated by a source other than your single 4th century christian bible. for which does correspond to the religion of antiquity and its simple objective as the guiding lite the manifestation of evolution has maintained from the beginning to the present time. purity in triumph the price for enduring change. metaphysically.

 

[Crepitus]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Highschool in texas.

Well there, as they say, is your problem.

 

[surada]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.

Who are you to tell me what to do? You are such a little man. Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity. However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature. Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years. So what did your private school do for you?

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

At least, you present something. I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie? It's like this. One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches. However, one does not have to believe in it. There is no common ancestor. Lucy was a chimp. Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities. Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists. Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real. It's like we have potential reality and actual reality. We still have no monkeys that are bipedal. The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time. Location would show just where the poor creature died. No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this). No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe. My question to you is why not if human evolution? You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true. We had the adult chicken before the egg.

Do you believe that people lived hundreds of years?

 

[james bond]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

There are no intermediate fossils. Let's stick to human evolution. Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created. It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on. The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on. However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen. As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

(Satan has the power of death, remember?)

There are a great many examples of intermediate fossils. Not having a science vocabulary, you might want to understand some common terms and definitions.

If you would like more, raise your hand and ask.

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
   
   Intermediate fossils include
   • Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
   • Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
   • Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
   • Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
   • A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
   • A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
2. And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
   
   
3. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
   
   
4. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
   • Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
   • The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
   • A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
   • Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

www.talkorigins.org

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

CC202: Transitional fossils and direct ancestry

www.talkorigins.org

“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.

You don't provide what evidence they are using to make its points, but your Talk.Origins points are not true.

CreationWiki response:

Note: The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

This is not true. This claim is based mainly on a comparison of skulls, most of which are just incomplete fragments. Even those that are nearly complete are broken into pieces and have had to be reassembled. This has allowed evolutionary presuppositions to get in the way. When these fossils are evaluated without assuming evolution, the alleged smooth transition goes away.

Evolutionists place a large emphasis on cranial capacity (brain size) and if that is the primary comparison then there is no solid gap, but that is not surprising since living gorillas can have a cranial capacity as high as 752cc and living humans go as low as 1100cc.[1] This leaves a gap of only 348cc difference, so it would not take much more variation on both sides for them to meet.

It further needs to be noted that there is more to the line between ape and human than cranial capacity or even skull morphology. There are numerous other skeletal differences that do not show up when all one has is a skull.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

The description of Australopithecus afarensis having more human-like teeth than a chimpanzee is a little like saying a station wagon is more truck like than a sedan. The fact is that Australopithecus afarensis teeth were still ape-like.

The claim that Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal is out of date. A study of their wrist showed that they had the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking apes. Furthermore, their skeletal anatomy showed that they walked with a stooped gait, similar to knuckle-walking chimps. This shows that,rather than being bipedal, Australopithecus afarensis was a knuckle-walker.

• See: Catchpoole, D., 2000. New Evidence: Lucy was a Knuckle-Walker. CMI, Feb. 11, 2006. Accessed: Sep. 5, 2020.

• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

The brain size of Africanus is within the upper limits of a chimpanzee. The only way the teeth of africanus teeth seem to be more human-like than those of afarensis is that africanus had smaller canine teeth and the back top teeth were farther apart. Otherwise the teeth of both have the same size and shape.

• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

The comparison of Homo habilis to australopithecines is accurate since all indications are that the best Homo habilis fossils are australopithecines and not the same species. As for the tools associated with Homo habilis, it turns out that they are not associated with Homo habilis fossils but have simply been "dated" to the alleged time frame of habilis. Furthermore, none of the reasonably complete Homo habilis skulls have a cranial capacity greater than 600cc and the rest are too fragmented for positive identification. However, all of their cranial capacities are with in the upper limits of gorillas.

Finally, Homo habilis is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.

• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

Most creationists believe that Homo erectus was human but probably highly degenerative. The use of cranial capacity averages is a little deceptive. While it does show a general trend, it hides the fact that one of the "oldest" homo erectus fossils has one of the highest cranial capacities. (Fossil OH 9, cranial capacity 1065, "date" 1.5 ma. This fits the degenerative model perfectly.) If the cranial capacity of Homo erectus was the result of a degenerative condition, those with the smaller brains would be the most degenerate, and as such they would also tend to be shorter-lived. So if the correct timing of the Homo erectus fossils were only a few generations, one would expect the more degenerative ones to be the oldest and the less degenerative ones to be the youngest, with anomalies such as fossil OH 9.

Finally, Homo erectus is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.

• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans".
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans.

Since all of these are human the presence of intermediates is no surprise.

And there are fossils intermediate between these.

Since Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are all human beings, intermediates would be no surprise, since they are all descended from the same ancestors and would probably be interfertile. Furthermore, being the same genus, it is likely all australopithecines were descended from the same ancestors and probably interfertile, so intermediates would also be no surprise. So the question is: is there a clear gap between the genus homo and the genus Australopithecus?

Having shown that the so-called Homo habilis fails to provide the necessary link, we are left with only a small number of fossils to consider.

Homo rudolfensis is represented by several fossils but only skull KNM ER 1470 is reasonably intact. KNM ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the lowest range of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus, both of which are fully human. The KNM ER 1470 skull has definite human features, and it looks as though in reconstructing this fossil the face was needlessly angled ten to twenty degrees away from the rest of the skull, making it look less human than it really is.

Next comes a group of fossils from Dmanisi, in Georgia of the former USSR. Three skulls were found at this site.

• The first two are skulls D2880 and D2282. Both fit the morphology of homo ergaster and are classified as such, making them human. Skull D2880 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the limits of homo ergaster. Skull D2282, however, is surprisingly small with a cranial capacity of only 650cc. While a human with such a small cranial capacity is surprising, it is not totally unexpected, based on the model that Homo ergaster and Homo erectus suffered from some form of degeneration. The fact that the only significant difference between D2282 and other Homo ergaster skulls is its size supports the degeneration model.
• The third skull, designated D2700, has a cranial capacity of only 600cc and like the other two was classified as Homo ergaster and thus it was human. While smaller than D2282, D2700 was a juvenile whose adult cranial capacity would have been about 650cc making it comparable to D2282. Given the fact that D2282 and D2700 were found in the same area, there is a good likelihood that D2700 was the child of D2282.
• Reference: Dmanisi Paleoanthropology - Dmanisi hominids
• Reference: The Rolex Awards: an excavation shedding light on early human evolution, D. Lordkipanidze
• Reference: Old Man of Georgia

So while the their brains were are on the extreme small end of the human kind, all four were clearly human. The fossils next down the line are clearly apes, so Talk.Origins' so-called fine transition does not exist.

2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape

Some disagreement has occurred about some individual finds, but this is nothing more than an information problem. Evolutionists guard their pet skulls like treasure. Most evolutionists don't even get a chance to study them firsthand, so a creationist does not stand a chance. Only one creationist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, has had such an opportunity and that was only with a few Neanderthal skulls. As a rule, creation scientists need to rely on what they can get from evolutionary sources for information on these skulls. Sometimes that has lead to misunderstandings about just how human the individuals were. This is particularly true of older finds such as Java man and Peking man.

3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

However the same evidence can also point to a common designer. If you start with the assumption that all life on Earth had a common ancestor, then yes the genetic similarities between humans and apes would suggest a close relationship. Similarly, if you assume that life arose from unintelligent natural causes then the genetic similarities between humans and apes would strongly suggest a common ancestor. However, if the only relationship between humans and apes is a common designer, then the genetic similarities are to be expected.

The closest comparison would be computer programming, since the genetic code is basically the programming of biology. In writing computer programs it is very common for programmers to reuse the same code to do the same job. If you had two similar programs written by the same programmer, it highly likely that you would find probably find that the programing code is virtually identical, in both sequence and placement.

Note that Talk.Origins' says "humans and other apes", so Talk.Origins is implying that humans are apes. This type of wording reveals their bias.

• Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome.
• The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined.

Other than evolution there are at least two other possible explanations for this data.

1. Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point. This would be consistent with the programmer analogy, since programmers often modify existing programs to produce new ones. The two ape chromosomes could have been stitched together as evidence of the genetic engineering.
2. More likely humans were originally created with 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the two of them joined at some point. The most likely time from a Biblical perspective would have been during the fall.

From a naturalistic perspective, such chromosome joining is difficult to explain; it would likely cause problems reproducing unless you had at least one mating couple with the joined chromosomes.

• A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome.

This is to be expected if both were created by the same designer.

• Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses).

These too are evidence for design, when one understands how viruses fit in to the design scheme. If viruses were designed as a DNA transfer system intended to aid adaptability, then this is to be expected. Such a virus would not insert themselves totally randomly, but in a location dictated by the existing genetic code. The result is that even unrelated organisms with similar DNA would tend to get such viruses in the same location. Furthermore, deterioration caused by mutations would make it likely that insertions would become more random over time.

• Reference: Genetic Variability by Design
• Reference: Gene Hi-Jacking - The Role of Genetic Transformation
• Reference: Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?

This interpretation is supported by studies showing that at least some ERVs are specific in their genome integration into the genome.

The present results indicate that there are highly specific integration patterns for each endogenous retrovirus that do not readily relate to their sequence or particle classification. Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions. Integration site preferences of endogenous retroviruses.

Replication of retroviruses and retrotransposons depends on selecting a favorable chromosomal site for integration of their genomic DNA. Different retroelements meet this challenge by targeting distinctive chromosomal regions. Despite these differences, recent data hints at a common targeting mechanism-tethering of integration complexes to proteins bound at favorable sites. Targeting survival: integration site selection by retroviruses and LTR-retrotransposons.

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

www.creationwiki.org

“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.

The only evidence I have for Satan is he contradicts God. Atheists/ags and evolutionists avoid Satan. Even believers avoid Satan, i.e. everyone avoids Satan. They blame and swear against God if things do not turn out good for them. I can't discuss Satan too much because he loves to hide and doesn't want to be exposed. He has my respect. The big trait is he loves to hide. All I can do is warn you that he has the power of death. Remember, they exchanged truth for a lie? It means that some kind of transaction was made. It is based on free will. Why would it be stated like that as a transaction? Not like "the devil made me do it?"

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.

Who are you to tell me what to do? You are such a little man. Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity. However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature. Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years. So what did your private school do for you?

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

At least, you present something. I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie? It's like this. One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches. However, one does not have to believe in it. There is no common ancestor. Lucy was a chimp. Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities. Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists. Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real. It's like we have potential reality and actual reality. We still have no monkeys that are bipedal. The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time. Location would show just where the poor creature died. No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this). No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe. My question to you is why not if human evolution? You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true. We had the adult chicken before the egg.

Why are you arguing with a devout Islamist? Waste of your time, sir.

 

[james bond]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job. I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work. I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist. One has to have some idea of history. Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young. It's more for older adults or those interested in it. I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites. What education does is open the world to people. It gave me a good life and I retired early. My kids are grown now and are finishing up college. If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty. We may see the same things, but think differently about it. That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion. We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.

Skills like public speaking, MS Office...Excel, Word and PowerPoint, negotiation, stats, how to calculate a mortgage or car payment, etc. are much more valuable skills.

Those are taught in schools, too. Before one can use what you mention, then they have to have a foundation of knowledge to be able to put those skills and tools to use. A young student has to learn how to walk before they can run.

 

[james bond]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Highschool in texas.

Well there, as they say, is your problem.

Did you learn human evolution then? Where did you learn it?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job. I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work. I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist. One has to have some idea of history. Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young. It's more for older adults or those interested in it. I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites. What education does is open the world to people. It gave me a good life and I retired early. My kids are grown now and are finishing up college. If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty. We may see the same things, but think differently about it. That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion. We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.

Skills like public speaking, MS Office...Excel, Word and PowerPoint, negotiation, stats, how to calculate a mortgage or car payment, etc. are much more valuable skills.

Those are taught in schools, too. Before one can use what you mention, then they have to have a foundation of knowledge to be able to put those skills and tools to use. A young student has to learn how to walk before they can run.

Not in our school systems they aren't.

 

[james bond]

What I find most amusing about this sort of thread, and they are fairly common, is that the same fundamentalist Christians who continually attack science are the ones who whine that people are attacking Christianity. Funny how they seem to think one is ok and the other is not.

Neither one is proven fact, yet one is sneered at by assorted sociopaths and deviant gimps and not allowed to even be mentioned in schools, while the other is taught as if it were a proven fact, and by psychos who also think school is the place for feeding kids stuff like 'Drag Queen Story Day' and sick neurotics into extreme sexual mutilation are 'normal' and their demented neuroses should be catered to, and homosexuality is genetic.

Teach them both or don't teach either of them. I prefer the latter, but if they're going to teach the stupid evolution rubbish then they can also teach the ID theories.

I think they should teach creation science in Sunday School.. That's the proper place for it.

No, service is usually to learn about the Bible as well as worship and yourself. There really is no proper place for evolution as it is a lie and based on atheism. There are no monkeys that are bipedal. I wanted a common ancestor in this thread, but received a chimpanzee. I even pointed out to the nerd that Lucy was a chimpanzee.

You can find one of those new Christian private schools for your children. They are pretty inexpensive. They will teach creationism, fundamentalism and the Bible as History and Science.. with lots of Scofield and Hal Lindsey thrown in. I suppose you do have the right to keep them ignorant.

Who are you to tell me what to do? You are such a little man. Anyway, I went to Catholic private school and later found out what they teach is different from Christianity. However, I believed in there was a God because I felt and learned about the beauty and complexity of nature. Yet, I got a well rounded education for my early years. So what did your private school do for you?

Go back to the Natufians in Jericho and the Levant.. and you can work backwards from there. Or, are you already an expert in human evolution?

At least, you present something. I'll have to refresh my memory on that.

As for your question, why would I be an expert on something that is a lie? It's like this. One could learn about human evolution, learn it to pass the subject, as well as use materials presented and be able to figure out a problem using what it teaches. However, one does not have to believe in it. There is no common ancestor. Lucy was a chimp. Moreover, all of the human skulls found reflect those of modern humans and deformities. Most who believe in it and are scientists are atheist scientists. Science changes, but I don't think evolution will ever become real. It's like we have potential reality and actual reality. We still have no monkeys that are bipedal. The evolutionary timelines are named after locations, but was made to represent time. Location would show just where the poor creature died. No life from non-life or primordial soup (science disproved this). No intelligent aliens; Not even an microbe. My question to you is why not if human evolution? You insulted my Genesis, but what it says holds true. We had the adult chicken before the egg.

Do you believe that people lived hundreds of years?

Typical atheist, anti-Christian and evolutionist. You do not answer questions from those who you are discussing things with. I usually assume they do not know. But it's unfair not to state that and go an ask another question just to use for attack.

I did remember the Natufians (not the term) as people of God. They were Abraham's people. They were prehistoric people, too. What were they to you?

 

[james bond]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Its up to the parents to educate their kids IMO. Schools are there to network, meet friends, learn social skills, garner study habits to pass standardized test, etc.

Your views are ridiculous. Ever heard of specialization? I'm a taxpayer. Society, the governments, and I want a school system to teach all the children as well as my kids, so we can have an educated and productive society and country. I had to work to support my kids, so parents can't do it all.

I have kids in the school system and I find that the teachings are archaic and don't help very much in the real world sans maybe a foreign language they learn. How often do you use calculus or frog dissection knowledge. You can look up historical data on the Internet. Schools are good for teaching social skills, study habits, responsibility and such but to me the parents are responsible for 80% of knowledge a child receives. I am a father of two girls, 11 & 13. I am also a taxpayer. It is OK for us to disagree.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. I've used calculus here as well a few times in a past job. I never used frog dissection, but it's to become familiar with how animals work. I think some kids will be interested and could become a vet or biologist. One has to have some idea of history. Most kids don't have interest in it because they're young. It's more for older adults or those interested in it. I'm more interested in history from the Bible as well as websites. What education does is open the world to people. It gave me a good life and I retired early. My kids are grown now and are finishing up college. If they bring me a calculus problem, then I think I can help them with it, but will be rusty. We may see the same things, but think differently about it. That's the purpose of a higher education in my opinion. We learned how to sharpen our interests and how to think for oneself.

Skills like public speaking, MS Office...Excel, Word and PowerPoint, negotiation, stats, how to calculate a mortgage or car payment, etc. are much more valuable skills.

Those are taught in schools, too. Before one can use what you mention, then they have to have a foundation of knowledge to be able to put those skills and tools to use. A young student has to learn how to walk before they can run.

Not in our school systems they aren't.

That's surprising. Public speaking was offered as a course when I went. A basic computer course included introduction to Microsoft office software and operating systems. No Apple. It may not have gone into using it, but it was covered.

Why are you arguing with a devout Islamist? Waste of your time, sir.

Probably. He mentioned some things of interest but didn't answer my question and is likely avoiding them.

 

[Crepitus]

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

"I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From
Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.
OLGA KHAZANSEPTEMBER 19, 2019

Here’s what I remember from biology class at my public high school in Texas: We learned everything there is to know about the Krebs cycle. We collected bugs in the heat and suffocated them in jars of nail-polish remover. We did not, to my recollection, learn much of anything about how the human species originated.

Most scientists believe that the beings that would become humans branched off from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, about 6 million years ago. We did not learn this part—the monkey part. That is, our shared ancestry with other primates. Because this was nearly 20 years ago, and memories tend to fade with time, I checked with several friends who went to the same high school at the same time. None of them recalled learning anything about human evolution, either.
The only high-school biology class I took was in ninth grade, and it was apparently so uninteresting to me that I don’t remember my teacher’s name. (My former school district did not return a request for comment.) My teachers were for the most part religious, though they appeared to stay firmly within the bounds of the state-mandated curriculum. In another class, my teacher showed us diagrams of the human eye, then snuck in a remark that the complexity of the eye is convincing evidence that there is a Creator.


I didn’t have many other opportunities to learn about humanity’s origin. The pastors at the evangelical youth group I attended—outside of school—told me it’s possible that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time. We can’t know for sure, they said, because carbon dating is not to be trusted.

My experience was far from unusual. While only 13 percent of teachers said they advocate creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, based on a survey of 926 public-high-school biology teachers done in 2007, the most recent data available, the majority do not explicitly advocate either creationism or evolutionary biology. This “cautious 60 percent,” write the Penn State political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their 2011 article on the topic, “are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives.” (Plutzer is in the process of conducting a new survey now; he told me preliminary data suggest little has changed since 2007). And there are recent examples of school administrators doubting the value of teaching evolution. In Arizona last year, three of the candidates vying for state school superintendent wanted students to be taught intelligent design, the Arizona Daily Sun reported. In 2017, a Utah school-board member nicely summed up the concept of “teaching the controversy” when she suggested “maybe just teaching theory and letting both sides of the argument come out—whether it’s intelligent design or the Darwin origin.” Except that people who study evolution also tend to believe there is no scientific controversy."

I Was Never Taught Where Humans Came From

Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution.

www.theatlantic.com

Highschool in texas.

Well there, as they say, is your problem.

Did you learn human evolution then? Where did you learn it?

School.

 

[Hollie]

It's going to get interesting when someone employs Intelligent Design,
and actually does something with what they have learned about Human Evolution ...

I'm not arguing for ID, but the ID side already have presented several good arguments. What they haven't been able to complete is be accepted as science.

Biology - Evolution cannot explain beauty and complexity (for complexity, we got that with the human and animals eye and ear)
Physics - Fine tuning (I know it from reading Stephen Hawking and his scientists articles from 2007-2011, but they took it all down b/c it went against evo)
Cosmology - Kalam Cosmological Argument I & II

You have never offered a good argument for ID'iot creationism because there isn't any.

Evolution certainly can explain the all-knowing, all-seeing eye. A standard ID'iot creationer claim is that eye is too complex to have developed naturally, thus, ''The Gawds Did It''.

Claim CB301:

CB301: Eye complexity

The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.

Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwinsaying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
2. All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

There is no obvious ''fine tuning'' of the natural world. It is dishonest to claim that Hawking and ''his scientists'' made any affirmative case for supernatural ''fine tuning''.

The Kalam argument is a philosophical one and exploits the fact that philosophical arguments can be made for anything because ultimately they are not burdened by the requirement for factual support and ultimately have no requirement to be true.

There are no intermediate stages. Stop believing in fairy tales.

Of course there are intermediate stages. Most biological organisms are in some form of intermediate stage of evolution. That is because external / environmental pressures change over time. That is why it is common for species to have imprecise defining characteristics because evolution is ongoing. Creationers want to define biology in terms of “kinds” that were supernaturally created. This implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of “kind” or species. Since there is not, ID’iot creationism, not evolutionary theory has a problem with a supportable argument.

There are no intermediate fossils. Let's stick to human evolution. Creation science believes in natural selection as something God created. It is natural for animals to prey upon each other and the environment plays a part in such that weaker traits do not get passed on. The stronger animals and traits survive and pass their genes on. However, with humans, this doesn't appear to happen. As a whole, we appear to be getting weaker and dying earlier.

(Satan has the power of death, remember?)

There are a great many examples of intermediate fossils. Not having a science vocabulary, you might want to understand some common terms and definitions.

If you would like more, raise your hand and ask.

CC050: Hominid transition

www.talkorigins.org

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
   
   Intermediate fossils include
   • Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
   • Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
   • Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
   • Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
   • A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
   • A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
2. And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
   
   
3. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
   
   
4. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
   • Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
   • The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
   • A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
   • Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

www.talkorigins.org

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 2A

CC202: Transitional fossils and direct ancestry

www.talkorigins.org

“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.

You don't provide what evidence they are using to make its points, but your Talk.Origins points are not true.

CreationWiki response:

Note: The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

This is not true. This claim is based mainly on a comparison of skulls, most of which are just incomplete fragments. Even those that are nearly complete are broken into pieces and have had to be reassembled. This has allowed evolutionary presuppositions to get in the way. When these fossils are evaluated without assuming evolution, the alleged smooth transition goes away.

Evolutionists place a large emphasis on cranial capacity (brain size) and if that is the primary comparison then there is no solid gap, but that is not surprising since living gorillas can have a cranial capacity as high as 752cc and living humans go as low as 1100cc.[1] This leaves a gap of only 348cc difference, so it would not take much more variation on both sides for them to meet.

It further needs to be noted that there is more to the line between ape and human than cranial capacity or even skull morphology. There are numerous other skeletal differences that do not show up when all one has is a skull.

Intermediate fossils include

• Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

The description of Australopithecus afarensis having more human-like teeth than a chimpanzee is a little like saying a station wagon is more truck like than a sedan. The fact is that Australopithecus afarensis teeth were still ape-like.

The claim that Australopithecus afarensis was bipedal is out of date. A study of their wrist showed that they had the same wrist anatomy as knuckle-walking apes. Furthermore, their skeletal anatomy showed that they walked with a stooped gait, similar to knuckle-walking chimps. This shows that,rather than being bipedal, Australopithecus afarensis was a knuckle-walker.

• See: Catchpoole, D., 2000. New Evidence: Lucy was a Knuckle-Walker. CMI, Feb. 11, 2006. Accessed: Sep. 5, 2020.

• Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

The brain size of Africanus is within the upper limits of a chimpanzee. The only way the teeth of africanus teeth seem to be more human-like than those of afarensis is that africanus had smaller canine teeth and the back top teeth were farther apart. Otherwise the teeth of both have the same size and shape.

• Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

The comparison of Homo habilis to australopithecines is accurate since all indications are that the best Homo habilis fossils are australopithecines and not the same species. As for the tools associated with Homo habilis, it turns out that they are not associated with Homo habilis fossils but have simply been "dated" to the alleged time frame of habilis. Furthermore, none of the reasonably complete Homo habilis skulls have a cranial capacity greater than 600cc and the rest are too fragmented for positive identification. However, all of their cranial capacities are with in the upper limits of gorillas.

Finally, Homo habilis is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.

• Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

Most creationists believe that Homo erectus was human but probably highly degenerative. The use of cranial capacity averages is a little deceptive. While it does show a general trend, it hides the fact that one of the "oldest" homo erectus fossils has one of the highest cranial capacities. (Fossil OH 9, cranial capacity 1065, "date" 1.5 ma. This fits the degenerative model perfectly.) If the cranial capacity of Homo erectus was the result of a degenerative condition, those with the smaller brains would be the most degenerate, and as such they would also tend to be shorter-lived. So if the correct timing of the Homo erectus fossils were only a few generations, one would expect the more degenerative ones to be the oldest and the less degenerative ones to be the youngest, with anomalies such as fossil OH 9.

Finally, Homo erectus is no longer considered a human ancestor, having been relegated to a side branch.

• A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans".
• A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans.

Since all of these are human the presence of intermediates is no surprise.

And there are fossils intermediate between these.

Since Homo erectus, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals are all human beings, intermediates would be no surprise, since they are all descended from the same ancestors and would probably be interfertile. Furthermore, being the same genus, it is likely all australopithecines were descended from the same ancestors and probably interfertile, so intermediates would also be no surprise. So the question is: is there a clear gap between the genus homo and the genus Australopithecus?

Having shown that the so-called Homo habilis fails to provide the necessary link, we are left with only a small number of fossils to consider.

Homo rudolfensis is represented by several fossils but only skull KNM ER 1470 is reasonably intact. KNM ER 1470 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the lowest range of both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus, both of which are fully human. The KNM ER 1470 skull has definite human features, and it looks as though in reconstructing this fossil the face was needlessly angled ten to twenty degrees away from the rest of the skull, making it look less human than it really is.

Next comes a group of fossils from Dmanisi, in Georgia of the former USSR. Three skulls were found at this site.

• The first two are skulls D2880 and D2282. Both fit the morphology of homo ergaster and are classified as such, making them human. Skull D2880 has a cranial capacity of 775cc which is within the limits of homo ergaster. Skull D2282, however, is surprisingly small with a cranial capacity of only 650cc. While a human with such a small cranial capacity is surprising, it is not totally unexpected, based on the model that Homo ergaster and Homo erectus suffered from some form of degeneration. The fact that the only significant difference between D2282 and other Homo ergaster skulls is its size supports the degeneration model.
• The third skull, designated D2700, has a cranial capacity of only 600cc and like the other two was classified as Homo ergaster and thus it was human. While smaller than D2282, D2700 was a juvenile whose adult cranial capacity would have been about 650cc making it comparable to D2282. Given the fact that D2282 and D2700 were found in the same area, there is a good likelihood that D2700 was the child of D2282.
• Reference: Dmanisi Paleoanthropology - Dmanisi hominids
• Reference: The Rolex Awards: an excavation shedding light on early human evolution, D. Lordkipanidze
• Reference: Old Man of Georgia

So while the their brains were are on the extreme small end of the human kind, all four were clearly human. The fossils next down the line are clearly apes, so Talk.Origins' so-called fine transition does not exist.

2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape

Some disagreement has occurred about some individual finds, but this is nothing more than an information problem. Evolutionists guard their pet skulls like treasure. Most evolutionists don't even get a chance to study them firsthand, so a creationist does not stand a chance. Only one creationist, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, has had such an opportunity and that was only with a few Neanderthal skulls. As a rule, creation scientists need to rely on what they can get from evolutionary sources for information on these skulls. Sometimes that has lead to misunderstandings about just how human the individuals were. This is particularly true of older finds such as Java man and Peking man.

3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:

However the same evidence can also point to a common designer. If you start with the assumption that all life on Earth had a common ancestor, then yes the genetic similarities between humans and apes would suggest a close relationship. Similarly, if you assume that life arose from unintelligent natural causes then the genetic similarities between humans and apes would strongly suggest a common ancestor. However, if the only relationship between humans and apes is a common designer, then the genetic similarities are to be expected.

The closest comparison would be computer programming, since the genetic code is basically the programming of biology. In writing computer programs it is very common for programmers to reuse the same code to do the same job. If you had two similar programs written by the same programmer, it highly likely that you would find probably find that the programing code is virtually identical, in both sequence and placement.

Note that Talk.Origins' says "humans and other apes", so Talk.Origins is implying that humans are apes. This type of wording reveals their bias.

• Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome.
• The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined.

Other than evolution there are at least two other possible explanations for this data.

1. Humans were genetically engineered by God or some other intelligent entity using ape DNA as starting point. This would be consistent with the programmer analogy, since programmers often modify existing programs to produce new ones. The two ape chromosomes could have been stitched together as evidence of the genetic engineering.
2. More likely humans were originally created with 24 pairs of chromosomes, and the two of them joined at some point. The most likely time from a Biblical perspective would have been during the fall.

From a naturalistic perspective, such chromosome joining is difficult to explain; it would likely cause problems reproducing unless you had at least one mating couple with the joined chromosomes.

• A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome.

This is to be expected if both were created by the same designer.

• Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses).

These too are evidence for design, when one understands how viruses fit in to the design scheme. If viruses were designed as a DNA transfer system intended to aid adaptability, then this is to be expected. Such a virus would not insert themselves totally randomly, but in a location dictated by the existing genetic code. The result is that even unrelated organisms with similar DNA would tend to get such viruses in the same location. Furthermore, deterioration caused by mutations would make it likely that insertions would become more random over time.

• Reference: Genetic Variability by Design
• Reference: Gene Hi-Jacking - The Role of Genetic Transformation
• Reference: Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses?

This interpretation is supported by studies showing that at least some ERVs are specific in their genome integration into the genome.

The present results indicate that there are highly specific integration patterns for each endogenous retrovirus that do not readily relate to their sequence or particle classification. Each host genome may utilize these elements for contrary, and possibly beneficial functions. Integration site preferences of endogenous retroviruses.

Replication of retroviruses and retrotransposons depends on selecting a favorable chromosomal site for integration of their genomic DNA. Different retroelements meet this challenge by targeting distinctive chromosomal regions. Despite these differences, recent data hints at a common targeting mechanism-tethering of integration complexes to proteins bound at favorable sites. Targeting survival: integration site selection by retroviruses and LTR-retrotransposons.

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

www.creationwiki.org

“Satan” has no power of death. You may choose to frighten and intimidate children with that nonsense but don’t bring your pathology into the grown up room.

The only evidence I have for Satan is he contradicts God. Atheists/ags and evolutionists avoid Satan. Even believers avoid Satan, i.e. everyone avoids Satan. They blame and swear against God if things do not turn out good for them. I can't discuss Satan too much because he loves to hide and doesn't want to be exposed. He has my respect. The big trait is he loves to hide. All I can do is warn you that he has the power of death. Remember, they exchanged truth for a lie? It means that some kind of transaction was made. It is based on free will. Why would it be stated like that as a transaction? Not like "the devil made me do it?"

Note: The dates used by Talk.Origins are based on uniformitarian dating methods and are invalid if the Genesis Flood occurred. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

Well, first, I'm not clear what the Genesis Flood is. Secondly, if a literal interpretation of the Bibles is true, very little of science or reality is true.

However, since there is no reason to accept any ''Genesis Flood'' or a flat earth or talking snakes or men living to 900 years old, etc., were left to exist in a contingent reality not controlled by old Men in nightgowns sitting on thrones in the clouds.

Thanks.