Evolution - Spin Off from the School Vouchers Thread - Page 5
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 152
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Evolution - Spin Off from the School Vouchers Thread

  1. #41
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,263

    Default

    I don't believe in the heliocenric theory. I'm not sure on the whole gravity thing because I don't think 2 objects dropped from the same height should hit the ground at the same time even though they don't way the same.

    In looking at different religions they seem to have equal weight regarding how the earth was created.

  2. #42
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,534

    Default

    Any child given the correct tools, in a science class, will conclude that evolution is by far the best *scientific* explanation, because it is. Plain and simple. If you don't want your kids to believe a scientific explanation is the answer, then you need to teach them about that, not their science teachers.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry I am on my Kindle and it is hard to quote.

    This the attitude that I am talking about. This is some Freedom of Religion. You can believe whatever you want, but we are going to make darn sure your kids don't believe it. This is why a school that teaches evolution as fact in not compatable with a family that teaches creation at home. In my opinion it is not acceptable to teach children that evolution is the only possible explination, because it is not. You are essence telling the child that what they are taught at home is false, and it is foolish to believe otherwise. Many students are with there teachers more of there waking hours than with their parents.

    Should only the wealthy parents get to send their children to schools that will respect their belief system?

    ~Bonita~

  3. #43
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Intelligent design is not scientific. You can't point to scientific stuff and then say "its best attributed to an intelligent cause" and call that science LOL

    At most it could be considered philosophical....at best it could be called religous faith. You can't test it, there is no possible way to try to prove its false. Its not science.

    Its speculation
    It is no more speculation than macro-evolution is.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #44
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,115

    Default

    Sorry I am on my Kindle and it is hard to quote.

    This the attitude that I am talking about.
    its not attitude, its fact. *within the realm of science* evolution is the only thing that makes sense. Don't want your kid to believe in science? That is up to you, yes. Science is a standard part of any academic Curriculum that i thank the heavens is included. What you are saying here suggests science doesn't belong in schools because it might not jive with someone's unscientific beliefs.

    This is some Freedom of Religion. You can believe whatever you want, but we are going to make darn sure your kids don't believe it.
    Sorry but i don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Either you believe in science and want to reap the benefits of it and having our children benefit from having it in the school system....or you don't. I think "teach my kids science....except for this part that doesn't jive with my relgious beliefs" is bogus. If you have a conflict between science and religion, that is up to you, as the believer i that religion to handle when it comes to parenting. Your life is worlds better with science in it, it should not be the concern of the science community that you have to work harder to teach your kids something you want them to believe.

    This is why a school that teaches evolution as fact in not compatable with a family that teaches creation at home.
    Because its hard to explain to your kids? Yep. But its up to you to explain why the two don't work together and yours is better. not school. Schools should teach science. They don't teach religion.

    In my opinion it is not acceptable to teach children that evolution is the only possible explination, because it is not.
    It is the only acceptable scientific explanation and we are talking about science classes. There are no good scientific alternatives.

    You are essence telling the child that what they are taught at home is false, and it is foolish to believe otherwise. Many students are with there teachers more of there waking hours than with their parents.
    Nope, just teaching kids what the scientific community believes. You can tell your kids that the scientific community is silly and makes no sense if you really want to.

    Should only the wealthy parents get to send their children to schools that will respect their belief system?
    Yes, because having your faith taught to your child by someone else is not a right.

  5. #45
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It is no more speculation than macro-evolution is.
    That's juts false and there is no other way to put it. You can research macro-evolution scientifically.

    "Its best to attribute this to an intelligent cause" There is nothing scientific about that at all and no way to research it scientifically.

    You can not believe Macro-Evolution is true, but it is still scientific in nature. Intelligent Design is not scientific in nature, it is simply a guise to make it look scientific so it can be forced into a science class.

  6. #46
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    So you mean neanderthals then? Yes they were human.

    Top 10 Misconceptions About?Neanderthals
    Did you even look at the skulls? The neanderthal skulls precede the modern human skull. Look back at skull A - that of a modern chimp - and follow it's transition long before the existence of homo sapien through to neanderthals and then modern humans. You see no evolutionary possibility there? Because I see much more than just possibility.

  7. #47
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    Did you even look at the skulls? The neanderthal skulls precede the modern human skull. Look back at skull A - that of a modern chimp - and follow it's transition long before the existence of homo sapien through to neanderthals and then modern humans. You see no evolutionary possibility there? Because I see much more than just possibility.
    So what makes a Neanderthal a chimp? Looks like they were pretty smart to me.

    Until recently, archeologists have thought of Neanderthals, an early relative of humans, as thick, slow thinking and likely uncreative. Now, new evidence dispels part of that image. Archeologists digging in the Netherlands have unearthed flint and bone fragments from 200,000 years ago that have remnants of red ochre on them, indicating that Neanderthals were using the material much earlier than was previously thought. The research team has published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
    Read more at: Research team finds evidence of red ochre use by Neanderthals 200,000 years ago
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #48
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    A single finger bone found in this Siberian cave led to an amazing discovery. Early humans and Neanderthals co-existed with another humanoid species called Denisovans. And many present-day humans carry genes that prove our ancestors had children with Denisovans, too.

    The new species is named after the cave where the 30,000 year-old finger bone was found. Researchers had been searching for Neanderthal bones in the area, and were surprised to discover what they initially thought was a fossil from an early human's little finger. To find out more, they shipped the bone off to the Max Planck Institute in Germany, where evolutionary biologist Svante P??bo had already sequenced several Neanderthal genomes. P??bo's tests gave a shocking result: The genome sequence they got from the bone showed that it was neither human nor Neanderthal.

    And yet it was undeniably a human relative, who had clearly lived among humans and Neanderthals thousands of years ago in the caves of Siberia. After careful analysis, a team of genomics experts figured out where the Denisovans fit into the puzzle of human ancestry. Most likely they are descended from a common ancestor shared with Neanderthals. When early humans left Africa about 300 or 400 thousand years ago, they spread out across Europe and Asia. Those who went west to Europe became the heavy-browed, squat Neanderthals. And those who went East became Denisovans.

    Genomics expert Richard Edward Green worked on analyzing the Denisovan DNA. In an email to io9, he explained:

    The genome of the Denisovans is more diverged from modern humans than any two humans are from each other. It's almost exactly as diverged as the Neanderthal genome was. That's one of the reasons that we think the Denisovans and the Neanderthals are descendants of a single migration event into Eurasia.

    Another wave of early human migration spilled from Africa about 70 to 80 thousand years ago. These travelers encountered both Neanderthals and Denisovans, eventually settling down and forming families with them. As a result, many Europeans have Neanderthal DNA; and, as the researchers report today in Nature, some Melanesian people from Papua have Denisovan DNA.

    The picture of early human life that emerges is a lot messier than what we believed even just twenty years ago, when many anthropologists believed humans diverged from Neanderthals and the two species never interbred again. Now it seems that humans had many cousin species - at least two that we know of - and that we separated from them only to rejoin them later, forming families and creating lineages that persist to the present day.

    So what makes the Denisovans and Neanderthals separate species from early humans anyway, given that all three groups co-habitated and had children together? Green said:

    Answering that question - How much DNA divergence is necessary to call something a new species? - is a very difficult one. We know there was admixture between early modern humans and a population related to the Denisovans. We can see this in the genomes of individuals from Papua New Guinea, as described in the paper. Thus, from this perspective they were similar enough to successfully mate with our ancestors. The sad, frustrating truth, though is that there is no simple answer to how much divergence must be present to call something a different species or sub-species or variety or whatever.
    Another humanoid species co-existed with early humans and Neanderthals
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  9. #49
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    The next time you're tempted to call some oaf a Neanderthal, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

    According to a new DNA study, most humans have a little Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.

    The study uncovered the first solid genetic evidence that "modern" humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbors, who mysteriously died out about 30,000 years ago.

    What's more, the Neanderthal-modern human mating apparently took place in the Middle East, shortly after modern humans had left Africa, not in Europe—as has long been suspected.

    "We can now say that, in all probability, there was gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans," lead study author Ed Green of the University of California, Santa Cruz, said in a prepared statement.

    That's no surprise to anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, whose skeleton-based claims of Neanderthal-modern human interbreeding—previously contradicted with DNA evidence—appear to have been vindicated by the new gene study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science.
    Neanderthals, Humans Interbred
    The results showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA, versus, for example, 98.8 percent for modern humans and chimps, according to the study. (Related: "Neanderthals Had Same 'Language Gene' as Modern Humans.")

    In addition, all modern ethnic groups, other than Africans, carry traces of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, the study says—which at first puzzled the scientists. Though no fossil evidence has been found for Neanderthals and modern humans coexisting in Africa, Neanderthals, like modern humans, are thought to have arisen on the continent.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #50
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    A series of cave paintings in Spain are thousands of years older than scientists realized, raising speculation — but no proof — that Neanderthals could have been the earliest wall artists in Europe.

    The oldest image, a large red disk on the wall of El Castillo cave in northern Spain, is more than 40,800 years old, according to an advanced method that uses natural deposits on the surfaces of the paintings to date their creation. The new findings, detailed in the June 15 issue of the journal Science, make the paintings the oldest reliably dated wall paintings ever.

    They also push the art back into a time when early modern humans, who looked anatomically like us, co-existed with their Neanderthal cousins in Europe. Some researchers think the paintings may predate European Homo sapiens, suggesting that the art may not be the work of modern humans at all.

    Neanderthals have been portrayed as brutish, animalistic cavemen, but the archaeological evidence suggests they weren't dummies. They buried their dead, made complex tools, and used decorative pigments. In 2010, Zilhao and his colleagues excavated shells coated in red and yellow pigments from a Neanderthal site in southern Spain. They suspect the pigments were used as makeup or body paint.

    Neanderthals went extinct around 30,000 years ago. Before they did, they mixed and mingled with humans. Between 1 percent and 4 percent of some modern humans' DNA came from Neanderthals, indicating the two species got amorous.
    Were Neanderthals Europe's First Cave Artists? : Discovery News
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions