Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[Burgermeister]

Darwin himself admitted that it is absurd to say that the human eye happened through mutation and natural selection.

Got a link for that?

Google it. You’ll get all the links you want. Well known.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

 

[james bond]

Well, I don’t read check out counter trash or listen to made up sht.

Again, you are wrong. It's your side that supposedly has the advantage on this, but the current news is current news.

Even the Bible states, 70 to 80 years now.

Current news ? so, just saying it’s current news and a message form the Bible makes everything true. I’ll have to remember that. Wow, between religion and the check out counter, you’ve got everything covered. hilarious. “ even the Bible says. “ Chuckles “ Thats fairy tail land...

Sorry, I missed your reply. You seem sure about this.

The Bible has it covered as we are supposed to live 70 to 80 years. Isn't that true? How long do you expect to live? I may be one of the fortunate ones to live to around 90.

What does your evolution state? I think it started with a low expectancy from the 1950s. Is that why you think it's gone up to 70 to 80 years?

The problem with comparing life expectancies is that the numbers make it look like it has significantly changed, as far as how old people get. It doesn't.

The big difference is infant mortality and childhood mortality. Once a child become an adolescent the chances of a long life improve significantly, and are not much different than today.

I don't disagree as age, health, and disease play a part, but you're identifying in other factors. The Silent Generation could have had a lower mortality rate due to two world wars. Thus, it's hard to figure out what is behind the nos from 1950s. If one talks about life expectancy today, then it has gone down in recent years such as from the 2000s.

 

[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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

Human evolution didn't happen. The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead. We don't even observe bipedal apes. Now, that's a fairy tale. LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.

 

[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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

Human evolution didn't happen. The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead. We don't even observe bipedal apes. Now, that's a fairy tale. LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.

Can you support your statement that a common ancestor [for humans] was a chimpanzee? I have never seen any support for that so what is your source?

 

[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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

Human evolution didn't happen. The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead. We don't even observe bipedal apes. Now, that's a fairy tale. LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.

Can you support your statement that a common ancestor [for humans] was a chimpanzee? I have never seen any support for that so what is your source?

You are really confused or have lost your marbles. I can support it because we still have chimpanzees today, none are bipedal, and we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. The science backs up Genesis.

 

[badbob85037]

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

You still don't. Try reading Genesis.

 

[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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

Human evolution didn't happen. The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead. We don't even observe bipedal apes. Now, that's a fairy tale. LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.

Can you support your statement that a common ancestor [for humans] was a chimpanzee? I have never seen any support for that so what is your source?

You are really confused or have lost your marbles. I can support it because we still have chimpanzees today, none are bipedal, and we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor. The science backs up Genesis.

As you know, none of that makes sense.

You stated in your earlier post "the common ancestor was a chimpanzee''.

In your latest post you stated, ''we do not have any evidence for a common ancestor''.

How does science ''back up'' genesis? Does science ''back up'' a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
one might ask what exactly is the spiritual content of physiology and how it differs from one species to another or even one being of the same species to another and if it is the same for all beings from the very beginning. and evolved differently.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Ha ha, yet you fall for the book of fairy tales.

Human evolution didn't happen. The common ancestor was a chimpanzee instead. We don't even observe bipedal apes. Now, that's a fairy tale. LMAO at your dumb reasoning with nothing to back it up.

You have yet to back up the fairy tale book, the bible........

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

I don't know what shitty schools you went to, but we absolutely did learn human evolution in science class starting in middle school.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

School is ever learning, never knowing what the truth is.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

School is ever learning, never knowing what the truth is. Parts that we did not make made us to be, The human mind is naturally against the mind, that made the parts, that made us to be. That mind is naturally against the sight of those parts. That is why there are laws agaanst the showing of those parts, on young, and old.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Instead, what I am discussing is human evolution which did not happen and isn't taught in schools. Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?

Presumption will exist with evolution. Faith, and presumption, are not the same. God who made all is life. Death came latter. What we see are the results of death. God could not have made life, had God be death.

 

[james bond]

You have yet to back up the fairy tale book, the bible........

Science proved it with EMS or light. It powers the universe since energy can't be created nor destroyed now.

 

[james bond]

Presumption will exist with evolution. Faith, and presumption, are not the same. God who made all is life. Death came latter. What we see are the results of death. God could not have made life, had God be death.

You can presume anything, but then science won't back it up if it's not true (like evolution).

 

[Hollie]

You can presume anything, but then science won't back it up if it's not true (like evolution).

The Flat Earthers' / religious extremists tend to be the loudest science deniers.

 

[james bond]

The Flat Earthers' / religious extremists tend to be the loudest science deniers.

I was discussing the science of burning. Probably in a lava pool or volcano if it's comparable to the lake of fire. The heat could get up 3000 degrees F. Even a gas stove (methane or LPG) can get from 600 to 3000 degrees F.

 

[Hollie]

I was discussing the science of burning. Probably in a lava pool or volcano if it's comparable to the lake of fire. The heat could get up 3000 degrees F. Even a gas stove (methane or LPG) can get from 600 to 3000 degrees F.

Your fears and superstitions about some godly lake of fire don't belong in the Science and Technology forum.

 

[james bond]

Your fears and superstitions about some godly lake of fire don't belong in the Science and Technology forum.

Sure it does with creation science. OTOH, how did heat get to quantum particles when matter had no energy?