Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[BlameTheEx]

RJGabriele

 

Two answers:

 

1) The other primates ARE as evolved as us. They just evolved to fill different ecological niches.

 

2) There were other versions of humans, but life is competitive and we were the winners.

[Freethinker]

Found one thing I do not like about the new forum, or perhaps more correctly I need to get used to. The Preview is not a seperate window. After Previewing my first attempt at repy I closed that window and lost the complete post! Erg!

 

Here we go again.

RJGabriele

 

Two answers:

 

1) The other primates ARE as evolved as us. They just evolved to fill different ecological niches.

 

2) There were other versions of humans, but life is competitive and we were the winners.

What can I say? Excellent answer Ex!

 

Yes the big confusion we typically find is due to the typical misinformation promoted by the Anti-Evolution crowd. They usually structure the assertion as curent humans (homo sapien sapien) having evolved from CURRENT ape species. Not as the correct frame of reference of a Common Ancestry. Part of the shift we have seen in the Scientific mindset is refelected in our recently revamping the suggested path of human evolution by showing Cro-magnon Man as a dead ended seperate evolutionary path. Rather than the previously held concept of Cro-magnon being an earlier link in the Homo Sapien Sapien line. Add to this the recent discovery of and (still disputed) addition of another dead ended path of Homo floresiensis.

 

This seems to show our intellectual advancements based on acceptance of Scientific process over religious superstition. By allowing the human species to be considered just another member of the animal kingdom, rather than some seperate special creation, we can allow for variation of and extinction of different human species.

[lindagarrette]

If humans are derived, evolved, from primates, why are they still primates? Meaning, why aren't there other versions of humans? If we came from other apes and such, why are they still around and not as advanced as us?

 

goofy? I know....just wondering what you think ?

I used to think humans were not related to Neanderthals and if

they ever mingled, there was no offspring. But I don't understand this analysis.

 

"DNA comparison estimates the most recent common ancestor of the Neanderthals at 151,000-352,000 years, while the human and Neanderthal divergence is placed at 365,00-853,000 years. "

 

Source: Ovchinnikov, and others 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404:490-493.

 

 

Does that mean we were the same species about 500,000 years ago?

[Freethinker]

I'm a little suprised that it was you that posted that Linda.

 

What it indicates is that "about 500,000 years ago" they had common ancestors.

[RJGabriele]

RJGabriele

 

Two answers:

 

1) The other primates ARE as evolved as us. They just evolved to fill different ecological niches.

 

2) There were other versions of humans, but life is competitive and we were the winners.

 

 

The answers above are as I assumed they would be, but my question now is....

 

1) Being there are so many species of primates, don't you find it strange that only one species evolved as far as humans? I realize we probably out lasted the supposed other competitive species thousands of years ago, but being how diverse the world is, I find it strange that only ONE species progressed to our level.

 

I guess this ----> http://www.darwinawards.com/ could be used as proof that there are other species out there competing, and loosing, the geene pool race, so maybe it's all moot. ;)

 

I enjoy the forums here and will try reading up on other topics now that I have found this site. It's great reading intelligent people's interpretations and thoughts on topics like this. I am using "Intelligent" loosely as I am surely not in that category, yet. Maybe someday. :wink:

[Tormod]

RJ, you are very welcome to our forums.

 

I think you will find that about half the people here find it perfectly natural that humans are the most evolved species because they believe that Man was created and has not evolved at all. The rest of us do not see mankind as any sort of pinnacle and accept that our "modern" history is pitifully short and frankly contains too much to be ashamed of to claim any place on nature's throne.

 

And then there are those who fall in between. :wink:

[Tormod]

Does that mean we were the same species about 500,000 years ago?

 

Linda...like FT says, this is a surprisingly poor deduction coming from you!

[Freethinker]

1) Being there are so many species of primates, don't you find it strange that only one species evolved as far as humans?

Why would we?

 

Do you find it strange that there is only one species of dolphines? Whales?

 

The mistake you are making is perhaps based on your wanting to pretend or catagorize "humans" as a unique species instead of a subset of "primates". Would you ask:

 

"Why are humans the only 'most intellectually evolved' primates?"

 

Many other primates are more evolved in other physical aspects than huamns are. You have arbitrarily chosen intellect as the criteria and wondered why the branch that evolved based on superior intellect is the one that did so.

 

And a belated welcome to our little party!

[RJGabriele]

RJ, you are very welcome to our forums.

 

Mahalo for your welcome.

 

I think you will find that about half the people here find it perfectly natural that humans are the most evolved species because they believe that Man was created and has not evolved at all. The rest of us do not see mankind as any sort of pinnacle and accept that our "modern" history is pitifully short and frankly contains too much to be ashamed of to claim any place on nature's throne.

 

And then there are those who fall in between. ;)

 

 

I was raised with 12 years of Catholic schooling, so I am torn between what I was taught as a child and what I have learned since about the world around me. It's inconceivable for me to ignore what science proposes to be the lineage of our being. Meaning Evolution has to have had some effect of everything. To me it seems only natural to accept that and move on. Yet, there are questions that still cause me to raise an eyebrow. The Big Bang... what went BANG? Why did it blow up? Whatever "it" is? What was there before the bang? How did those first organisms get started if the Big Bang produced only the most basic of elements? How did they get a foothold in such a hostile environment? Where did my left sock go in the laundry? These are things that keep me up at night. ;) :wink:

 

Anyway...not looking for answers, just babbling on and trying to keep my mind occupied. Have a good day! ;)

[Tormod]

These are things that keep me up at night. ;) :wink:

 

Anyway...not looking for answers, just babbling on and trying to keep my mind occupied. Have a good day! ;)

 

You're in good company here...keep babbling and thinking, just remember to get some sleep now and then. ;)

[lindagarrette]

Linda...like FT says, this is a surprisingly poor deduction coming from you!

My wording was very unclear. I interpreted the source to mean there was a common ancestor less than 400,000 years ago. Were the two species still close enough to be intermingling during that time? (between the "divergeance" and the common ancestor). I thought the determining factor of a species was that it was able to have offspring with it's own "kind." Now it seems that there is no such distinction or there was an intermediate stage of evolution. It just didn't make sense to me. You don't need to reply. I probably just misinterpreted. Minor detail.

[Tormod]

You don't need to reply. I probably just misinterpreted. Minor detail.

 

Jsut my trigger happy posting finger. Did not mean to offend you, Linda. :wink:

[Freethinker]

I was raised with 12 years of Catholic schooling, so I am torn between what I was taught as a child and what I have learned since about the world around me.

I get a kick out of a commercial on TV for a comedian. He says he went to Catholic School for 12 years but is no no longer a Catholic. When asked why, he says cause he went to Catholic School for 12 years. :-)

 

Maybe you had to be there....

 

I went for 6 and I can still vividly remember the specific moment in School when the Nun helped turn me into the Atheist I am today.

 

She then had a fling with one of the priests and the two of them left the church.

Yet, there are questions that still cause me to raise an eyebrow. The Big Bang... what went BANG? Why did it blow up? Whatever "it" is? What was there before the bang? How did those first organisms get started if the Big Bang produced only the most basic of elements? How did they get a foothold in such a hostile environment? Where did my left sock go in the laundry? These are things that keep me up at night. ;) :wink:

 

Anyway...not looking for answers, just babbling on and trying to keep my mind occupied. Have a good day! :)

 

And we have some good discussion on these. Hope to see you join in.

[Kevin Wirth]

well... if creationism is taught, biology would be gone. No one in that school would be able to take bio thus would have a huge disadventage (sic) going into fields in college that deals with medical, chemical, biological stuffs.

 

""Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," "

 

yep, thats right...it would mess the whole biology class up.

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

What a bunch of pure baloney! Man o man. I haven't heard such declarations since the snake oil peddler came through town.

 

Give me a break.

 

You guys all seem to think that just by spouting it off like this makes it all true. How do you know this (scientifically?). Answer: You don't. I thought this was a 'science' forum. You guys are spouting off pure speculation here. Show me some even handed EVIDENCE to back up your claims.

 

In fact, I suspect that what would happen if creationism was taught is that you'd have kids who were MORE educated, not less so. And if you think that by teaching creationism 'biology would be gone' - then you sure don't know your history very well. Some of the best scientists in history were creationists - including folks in the biological sciences arena.

 

Of course, THAT'S because if you're not evolutionist, you are often denied academic advancement to higher education. That's nothing less than ostracising by discrimination. Not a bad way to keep all your beliefs 'in the family', right? :D

 

So heck no - biology would still be around - and it would be BETTER off, not worse, for teaching creation.

 

You guys remind me of the tobacco companies who continued to claim that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. Look what happened to their credibility when they had to admit they were wrong. You want to be in that position? Keep up the good work.

;)

 

You need to think about the future of science and the credibility it will suffer if folks like you continue to portray evolution as 'the backbone of science' or 'biology' or any other scientific discipline.

 

It doesn't work that way in real life. ;)

 

Science had BETTER be able to survive just find no matter WHAT the theory ju jour or du century might be.

 

Science is not propped up by scientific theories. If you DO that, then you DO ruin (not to mention misrepresent) what science really is.

[Kevin Wirth]

They seem to be completely blind to the fact that they are completely wrong, and that the theory of evolution is one of our most successful ones.

 

No truer words have ever been spoken of people who are completely and totally convinced that evolution is a fact.

 

Evolution is only one of your most 'successful ones' not because of its merits, but because it has been one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the history of science. If someone takes the time to look behind the curtain, I can promise many big surprizes to the person who is a true sketic - which is a required attitude of a true scientist.

 

These people are willing to destroy the education for entire generations.

 

No we're not - we're actually trying to SAVE science education, not destroy it. You've got it all wrong. As in TOTALLY. ;)

[Kevin Wirth]

In my kids' Middle School the Biology teacher tells me he does not ahve time to teach Evolution, just "Change over time". Want to guess what his personal POV is?

 

Let me see, and I'm supposed to feel bad about this when there are a TON of other teachers all across the country who insist that evoltion is a fact, and if I don't believe it by the time I get my 4 year degree, I can expect a healthy number of my education 'advisory board' to recommend that I not be given an advanced degree.

 

So - which is worse - a teacher who declines to speak, or teachers who blatantly discriminate against my right to think and speak freely?

[Kevin Wirth]

And as such "Science" would stop being Scientific. If the accepted concept is that "god happens", that things happen, not because of some natural flow of causation, some definable, predictable, testable, unwavering set of laws and processes, but because some old guy in the sky snaps his fingers. Then science woould be like "Art Appeciation". "Oh isn't interaction between that chemical and the body cute this time?" instead of Medical Science finding a cure for a disease.

 

Now THIS is priceless.

 

Just because something in the universe may not fit within the confines of what you consider to be 'scientifically validated' does not mean that its not 'real' or 'possible' or even worse, 'actual'. ;)

 

 

"And an unwillingness to accept the specific rejection of religious dogma when it is shown to be wrong by Science has been a corner stone of the intentional enforcement of ignorance over knowledge by religious authority. It is seen at every advancement of Knowledge over religious ignorance. People were killed by religious authorities for claiming the earth is not flat, circles the sun, ... by this same mindset. Hypatia, Giordano Bruno, ... "

 

You guys are setting up straw men here. You are interchanging the use of relgion with people who hold religious beliefs.

 

First of all, religion isn't all ignorance - it's a different way of knowing things. Yes, it's a different paradigm of acquiring knowledge (and please, I don't want to hear anyone give me a response about kooky religious beliefs - that's not the point here...) And, just because the way of religion is different than the way of science does not mean it's 'antiquated' or smaks of 'ignorance' in all that it is. We could all easily point to kooks myths in science - but that wouldn't mean that ALL of science is bad, now would it.

 

The same holds true of religious beliefs, or beliefs that are consistent with religious beliefs. It's a logical fallacy to fault the entire realm of religious knowledge based on its defects. Just like you don't throw all of science out just because there are some scientific charlatans.

 

The 'intentional enforcement of ignorance' of many things has been massively promoted in the name of science - not just religion.

 

So let's drop that argument, shall we? It won't hold water.