Education is a different story than scientific researches. For a class to be taught (esp. in high school), the material MUST be well supported by scientific researches (i.e. publications in well-edited scientific journals). In research, I really do NOT care if someone is so dedicated to be researching on ID, but our next generation deserves the best science education!
Here's what teaching the controversy is like in practical application:
"Class, we are here to educate you in the science of biology, which includes the theory of evolution. There are people who disagree with the theory of evolution and believe that a supernatural agency of some sort is responsible for the mechanisms of biological life. That is their prerogative. However, since this is a science class, we'll be discussing the science of biology and the theory of evolution."
"All right, class, due to the new mandates that we 'Teach the Controversy' I am required to give you the evidence for Biblical creation as well. So we'll do that right now. Get your pencils out. Is everybody ready? All right: here is the evidence for Biblical creation: [cricket cricket cricket] Are there any questions?"
@shanedk They are theocrats exactly...trying to discredit science and misinform OTHER people's children with their ignorance! It infuriates me to no end. Can you imagine if this were reversed? If the teaching of evolution was forced into the churches and taught to kids in Sunday school?
@ninjacatmagic You can call it "whacky" all you want (whatever that means), but it's still the best-supported theory in all of science, better even than gravity. Deal with it.
@shanedk Thank God it's you and not Mr. Post Nobody'sassources guy....You can believe in nonexistant, magic transitional hominidae if you like....Christians can believe that God put dinosaurs fossils there to test their faith if they like.....And I'll just sit here walking the tightrope until a legitimate theory with real evidence is put before me...I hope it's God, would like to see it be evolution, but know that it is probably neither.... ;)
@ninjacatmagic It's Virgil0211, though I understand you may have difficulty understanding unfamiliar words. To be proper, you should refer to me, as well as any other among your myriad and obvious superiors, as "sir".
You mean the literally dozens of transitional fossils we've found thus far are imaginary? Do you claim that archaeologists, chemists, geologists, etc, are all lying? That's a hefty accusation to make without evidence.
Thus far, you've deliberately ignored all evidence. Liar.
@ninjacatmagic And by the way, I do not need to post sources to criticize your logic. I only need to demonstrate an intrinsic flaw in your reasoning. Even as such, I count two sources I provided just off the top of my head,namely the Wikipedia article on the ad hominem fallacy and an article discussing Francis Crick's position on panspermia. Let's chalk this up to yet another lie on your part.
Seriously, where did you go to college? What degree did you get? What was your major?
There is no "controversy"--at least not a scientific one. Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection is on firmer ground than is Einstein's theory of relativity. The only controversy is POLITICAL, not scientific. If they insist on teaching "the Controversy", then should so in Social Studies or Political Science, and it should include the fact that the "controversy" is a false one cooked up to satisfy a political/religious agenda.
I find it absolutely ludicrous to think that a religious sect demands that schools ‘teach the controversy’ they trumped up about evolution while ignoring the fact that they are just one of about 35,000 sects embroiled in controversies over whose biblical OPINION is the correct one.
This is a great video with well supported opinions - it's really convincing - but I can't shake the fact that the music in the background and the tamber of your voice combined make it feel like some creationist videos I've seen before.
"To teach the geocentric and heliocentric models together as if hey were equal and encouraging the students to make up their own mind..." It's been done: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo (except that he didn't treat them equally, and thus arose a lot of his later problems when he cast the Pope on the loosing side.)
You DID NOT understand the question so far, NAME just ONE advancement in science due to a bunch of pseu-scientists DID apply the idea, concept or notion that Humans descend from one of those weird Cambrian creatures?
By the way what does the challenge of getting a drug that pass through the blood/brain barrier has to do with weird Cambrian marine creatures turning into humans?
It has to do with how mutagenic HIV-1 is. We know that evolution is not random, and therefore there must be a finite number of ways that HIV-1 has of mutating a resistance to drugs. So all you need to do is close off all of those evolutionary doors and you've killed all the HIV-1 cells. THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE LAB.
And it would have been IMPOSSIBLE without the very theory that tells us all life evolved from a common ancestor.
We observe HIV-1 mutating to a resistence to drugs, that´s what we observe, and from that observation you conclude that all life evolved from a bacteria?, even at virus level such a ludicrous claim is contrary to the irrational conlcusion itself...
You know evolution is not random and therefore there must be a finite number of ways tha HIV-1 has of mutating a resistence to drugs, so you´re are SURE that no matter how many mutation ocurres HIV-1 ALLWAYS will be a HIV virus, got it?
Once again and for the thousandth time you just confirmed what I´ve been arguing ever since, HIV virus after a finite number of mutations remain a HIV virus, even at virus level virus ONLY brings forth only mutated virus, Did you understand it so far?
If we were to teach the controversy, we should teach the earliest pagan creation myth - because that's controversial for both sides, so that's real controversy. And the earliest myth ought to be considered as the most realistic one, since it was first.
We should not teach ANY myth, that´s why the modern scientific myth that claims with no evidence whatsoever that humans descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, and even worse ALL those weird Cambrian marine creatures descend from a bacteria or something like that, should not be taught at any education level, but unfortunatelly it´s taught all over the world, and even worse it´s taught as it were science, that´s real offense to the human intellect.
My previous comment's supposed to be sarcastic. What I meant to show that people who want their creation myth to be taught because they think "we should teach the controversy", don't want to be taught anything that's controversial to themselves. So they're hyporcites.
We shouldn't teach any creation myths. We should only teach evolution, because it's a theory based on facts. Just like gravity. Intelligent design is based on creation myth. Designer = creator. Creator = creation.
Imagine, teaching our children that they descend from a worm like creature, that´s bizarre and irrational.
Once upon a time there was a population of weird Cambrian that believe it or not they decided not to live in the water any longer so throughtout a series of transformation turned into humans, right?
Nooope my friend such a claim is myth, a scientific myth but a 100% a myth, I hope you are enought to understand.
"Once upon a time there was a population of weird Cambrian that believe it or not they decided not to live in the water any longer so throughtout a series of transformation turned into humans, right?"
Quite right. First they had simple membranes allowing for gas exchange so they could breathe underwater & on land. Those remaining on land evolved lungs & those in water - gills. Just google evolution of lungs or gills - plenty of articles & scientific papers explaining that.
@chuyaventuras Hey there religitard troll. Mind pointing to some sources that PROVE or even give reasonable credibility to Evolution being a myth? And nothing 'decides' to change what it is, it's called mutation and even now humans show signs of mutation AND the activation of certain dormant genes. Babies born with tails are clear evidence for common ancestry with monkeys and other apes (yes we ARE ape's).
A theory based on facts? Really, Which facts support the irrational and bizarre idea, concept or notion that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?, There is no way to make a ludicrous claim as that if you don´t believe in a myth, the scientific myth taught as science, there is no known mechanism/evidence that sucha fantastic transformtation ever took place.
"The explosion may not have been a significant evolutionary event. It may represent a threshold being crossed: for example a threshold in genetic complexity that allowed a vast range of morphological forms to be employed."
Source: Solé, R.V., Fernández, P., and Kauffman, S.A. (2003). "Adaptive walks in a gene network model of morphogenesis: insights into the Cambrian explosion".
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began.
fossilmuseum . net / Paleobiology / CambrianExplosion . htm
Please do not try to educate the uneducated, they will just steal your jobs if they become functional beings. McDonalds needs workers and I need my breakfast sandwich. Quit trying to upset the balance of nature by teaching facts. Their God wants them to stay poor and ignorant, respect for your fellow man dictates you do not interfere.
I do assume to be educated is believing that you descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, if that`s what you say, I´d rather be uneducated.
Good for you Chuyavetures, that's a great attitude! I say ignore reality and let emotions rule your life. Jesus has provided all the answers you'll ever need to life's deep mysteries and He gave you the cell phone and computers so you can be entertained while you flip the burgers. Ignorance truly is bliss, never forget it.
What does cell phones or computers have to do with the bizarre, absurd and stupid idea that you descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures? By the way tell me just ONE advancement in science that has been, just one where scientists have applied this ludicrous concept, notion or idea?
I don´t want a bunch of them, I know there are a lot, but show me just ONE, hmmm
Now now, Chuy don't worry your head about such things. Why if you keep asking those kind of questions you'll make God mad. We both know you have no desire to really learn anything or you would be off thinking and reading a high school text book on the subject. Now go have a nice lie down, put an ice pack on that over heated brain and relax. You already have all the answers. Repeat after me :God done it, God done it, Jesus provides, I is smart because I know God done it.
I did read "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton, it´s an excelent book on the subjet, I encourage you to read it too, there is a lot of real science there, and please halt repeating in your mind, mutations + plus natural selection + time is the driving mechanism that turned a bacteria or something like into ALL the plants and animals living and extinct, that is really absurd and certainly non-scientific, I bet you, I encourage you not to read talk-origins, it`s worse
Good for you crossold...ignore paleontology and let the scientific myth rule your belief, that´s a great attitute towrd science, isn´t it? hmmm, I don´t think so, do you?
You have done the correct thing Chuyie. Never read an actual text book on a subject when you can read a biased book that supports your predetermined conclusions. After all if the Discovery Institute isn't an authority on the subject, who is? I encourage you to stop questioning as it will put your eternal state of bliss in jeopardy. You have gone beyond what God demands of you and read a book. Why pursue the matter any further? Genesis has provided all the answers you need.
regardless of your strawman argument or your view of the idea - the evidence disagrees with you and all - down to every little detail - supports evolutionary theory and exclusively evolutionary theory.
Don´t be so sure, you have failed over and over again to give just ONE observed example where a creature does not bring forth after its basic type of creature, offering evolution as the driving mechanism for such an incredible transformation is totally unsupported by the observational data, but you do "believe" it does, there is no way to reason that way unless you have gone totally insane.
@chuyaventuras We'll classify 'basic type' into mammal, bird, reptile, etc... for this one ok? Archosaur were creatures that roamed the land in the days of old (that's code for millions of years ago) and were not just ONE 'type' of creature but TWO! They had traits for being both avian (bird) and crocodillia (reptiles, more specifically crocodiles). Kirk Cameron was right that if evolution were true we should have seen some crocoducks, and we have evidence they existed.
It's actually a scary thing if ID was taught in schools alongside Science. I hope that creationism crap stays out of schools. Creation is taught in church or in Sunday school, or whatever. Keep that crap out of public schools.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fernoe
But the point still stand...
It is a "hallucination-al fossil", as the rest of them.
Listen, it´s ok for science to investigate and expain how the natural world works, but when it comes to origins it makes a horrible, ludicrous and plain stupid work, hopefully you can understand what I said
What is your alternative chuyaventuras? What do you think happened? How do you explain the fossils? How do you explain genetic descent? How do you explain comparative physiology?
My goal is not to offer any alternative explanation, but for sure the explanation that is taught as science is just a modern scientific myth, I bet you.-
First of all, What happened? what do you think happened if most phylas the very fisrt time they appeared suddenly and fully formed with no trace of any ancestor?
What happened if all creatures remained unchanged during their ternure ONLY to vanish and be replaced by new totally new creatures? What alternative explanation could you offer
"My goal is not to offer any alternative explanation"
And that's why you're a lying coward.
IF the species just vanished with new ones being created, then why does it look EXACTLY like they slowly changed into each other over millions of years?
That´s exactly what you have choosen to believe by faith and contrary to the observational data, you better than me know exactly what the fossil record is all about, if you don´t know get your education in paleontology, but I DON´T think is your case, you´re willingly ignorant of what the fossil record is all about and agains any one who does not want to admit what the observational data tell us, sorry for you.
You obviously have not observed the true fossil record chuyaventuras. Since you are not providing an alternate explanation for true data it seems you are trying to provide alternate data that does not match facts ^_^ Since I don't use faith I verify every fact I am presented with. Your argument does not pass verification.
You have no idea what the fossil record is all about...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless...S, G, Gould.-
Forget about the Punctuated equilibrium and quote mine or out of context arguments.
No, they don't, and you know it, so you're LYING again. You've been SHOWN the slow gradation from land vertebrates to whales. You've been SHOWN the morphing from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods. And yet, you LIE.
Incorrect. Creationism is a lie. Creationists are people who believe a lie. A lot of them do not have the intention to lie. They are just not very bright. And that might be an understatement.
Have I been shown the slow gradation from land to what?, Nooope, you have offered a serie of creatures that lived in the past that you assume, conjeture, hallucinate that are whales ancestors, imagine in a court room, your honor pakicetues evolved into whales and I have proof of it, just look at the inner ear structure, He is going to laugh of you, so I.
We have the nostrils gradually moving back to become a blowhole. We have the back limbs gradually disappearing. We have the front limbs gradually becoming flippers. We have the melon organ gradually appearing. All that and more IN ADDITION TO things like inner ear structure.
You assume, conjeture or hallucinate that you have nostrils gradually moving back, those are deep scientific hallucinations to support your scientific myth based on Charly ideas, in reallity you have none, but if you believe in such a plain stupidities, enjoy yourself, enjoy your "transformers" scientific myth, but I can tell you something in order to believe you descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures you have to have lost your reasoning.
No, it is NOT a hallucination. Ambulocetus has nostrils at the end of its snout; in Protocetus and Rhodocetus, they're slightly further back; in Durodon, it's more than midway up the snout; and finally, in Squalodon, it's a proper blowhole above the snout.
THIS IS NOT HALLUCINATING. These are the ACTUAL FOSSILS. So get over your pathetic hallucination kick; this is REAL.
First of all, I´ve not said the evolution is not true, I repeatedly have said that evolution micro & macro is true, What I´ve been arguing is that evolution CAN NOT be offered as the explanation on how you descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, capizca?
But evolution IS that very explanation, so you're just talking around yourself there. You can't say evolution is true but common descent isn't. That's trying to have it both ways.
Noooo, I don´t only don´t believe, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support such a ludicrous claim, that is the greatest stupidity claim ever made by those who advocate to the scientific myth based on a failed clergy man ideas called Charly
the problem here is people give you examples of how there is evidence of one species making a very big change into another species, evidence that scientists have used the theory of evolution to make very accurate predictions, and your only arguments against it is it's 'hallucational' or that it's assumed. you haven't given any reason to your arguments.
The problem here is that people as you and ALL evolutionoids defend the stupid idea that humans descend from ONE (populations if you will) of those weird Cambrian marine creatures and offer no evidence for such a ludicrous claim, THAT IS the problem, and when asked resort to EVEN more ludicrous arguments.-
Show me your evidence that such a fantastic & ludicrous claim is true, and you win, that simple.
A species making a very big change into another species? Hmmm, which species?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fern
You believe on a scientific myth, a fairty tale for grown-ups if you will that goes like this:
If a frog turns into a Prince is a tale for kids, isn´t it? but if you give 500 millions years to a POPULATION of those weird Cambrian marine creatures will turn not only into humans but into a serie of very different creatures along the way and you call this science, when in reality it´s a fairy tale that claims that a life form can turn into another totally different life form, period.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
shana
Do you have a better argument other than this? you look pathetic, come on, I love you when you use this ludicrous arguments, just curios, is there any manual where all this stuff is gathered together, everyone of you uses the same arguments.-
Shane, you believe in a fairy tale for gullible grown-ups whether you admit it or not, it´s been shown over and over again, Why you insist making a fool of yourself, don´t defend the transformer scientific myth unless you have real evidence
BTW I´ve not forgotten your question, I´m just reserving the answer with a built in question, that eve you´ll agree it has been confirmed over and over again by the observational data, you´ll love it.
A weird Cambrian marine creature (population if you will) turns into...
The frog turns into instantaneously...
The weird Cambrian creatures takes 500 millions ...
A frog turning into a Prince, has never been observed and there is no evidence that this could happen...
No creature has never been observed to turn into something other than the same type of creature...and there is no evidence whatsoever that this could ever happened....
Salamanders produces salamanders, different species according to a modern scientific definition, but I can assure that ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures is a totally different type, kind of species than humans, and that´s what you basically "belive" and attemping to explain how such a fantastic, ludicrous and certainly unscientific claim you offer evolution as the driving mechanism, obviously this has never been observed to happened in the real world.-
if by type you mean species then 1) you should have just said species and 2) formation of new species has been observed repeatedly both in the lab and in the wild.
Again you´re thinking to much, but let´s test your "beliefs" after you did think.
Do you think and then believe that such an observerd process of speciation explains how ONE of those weird Cambrian very slowly changed into humans? sure you believe, so stop thinking because the more you think the more you believe, or change your pseudo-name to ThinkMoreBelieveMore.
if you study a bit of paleontology and taxonomy, it's actually quite well explained - except it wouldn't be one instance of speciation but many. considering the number of generations since then, it's not all that surprising.
That's not "types," that's the nested hierarchy. Yes, salamanders produce salamanders--and if they produced anything else, evolution would be FALSIFIED.
I would think you would have tired of showing your profound ignorance by now...
You just show your profound, insurmountable willingly ignorance of the scientific observed facts, it´s worthless but you´re again, roses produces roses a huge variety of them, will bananas have prouduced bananas a wide variety of them, finches through out selected breeding produces a wide variety of finches, but you BELIEVE one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures or a population as you said produced almost everything else we see today, you have got to be hallucinating
Once again you show me your profound misunderstanding what I´m arguing against to, this is not the first time that you do not capizca my words, but again, I´m not arguing against evolution, evolution CAN NOT BE falsified since has been observed, tested, proven, confirmed, CAPIZCA?.-
What is the most stupid, ludicrous, bizarre AND anti-scientific is to offer evolution as the driving mechanism that TRANSFORMED one creatures into another totally different of course given enought time.-
And you believe that nested hierachy it´s evidence that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
No way, wake up, stop using those kind or arguments, if you have any real evidence that can support you belief, show me.-
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies, obviously nested hierarchy interpretation is based on the assumption that the scientific myth is true, right?
no, the talus bone is the wrong shape for proto-primates. it matches the shape of an apes talus bone. it also doesn't have a grooming claw or a tooth comb. ida also had opposable thumbs.-
And this is enough evidence to consider humans share a common ancestor with IDA?, you have got to be kidding.
Remember the man outside the White House, never forget him, always keep him in mind.-
That´s is the interpretation given from those who holds a strong advocacy in Charly ideas, that´s all
well seeing as that talus bone doesn't appear in any other animal, other than apes and ida, and that scientists predicted that, what other conclusion is there?
Well done, so basically the talus bone argument plus a high advocacy in the scientific myth of transformer based on a failed clergy man ideas, IDA shares a common ancestor? wooow, and if we move back to the Cambrian era just becasue a weird Cambrian creatures was back boned is evidence that humans descend from such a creature, right? in english, that´s plain ludicrous and certainly ANTI-SCIENCE, a superior presumption based on a scientific myth, good job, best way to do science.
it also doesn't have a grooming claw or a tooth comb. ida also had opposable thumbs
It also proves that there is no evidence to suppoprt your scientific myth, so evidence has to be manufactured.-
Give up, there is no evidence to claim that one creatures can turn into another totally different creature of course given enough time, (transformers theory) other than assumptions or hallucinations, if you have any pleaser do so, but don´t bring to the debate table ludricous ones.
The more you think freely if you will, the more you believe, imagine, you believe humans, chimpanzees and bonobos shares a common ancestor with no evidence whatsoever, so think less lest you believe in more ludicrous claims.
Once again thinking more believing more, Human Chromosome 2 and common interspecies ERV insertion points, well if that is the interpretation that you BELIEVE THE MOST which of course is totally based on scientific myth started by a failed clergy man called Charly, continue thinking and believing
well, thank you for your confession that your problem isn't that there's a lack of evidence since there's plenty but rather that dogmatically reject evidence if it's presented to you.
The more you "think" the more you "believe" with no evidence whatsoever blows my mind.-
Now that you mention it, Show me just ONE evidence, JUST ONE, that you descend from ONE (population if you will) of those too weird Cambrian marine creatures, I´m not asking too much, am I? JUST ONE EVIDENCE.
"Think about it" you believe I don´t know how you "think" of this, that you descend from one of those weird creatures, and that´s a ! belief ! of its own.
besides that moving the goalposts, you've also already demonstrated that you have no interest in actual evidence thus it would be an effort in futility to do so.
but while we're on the topic of human evolution, what mechanism can you present that makes it impossible, and what is your evidence-supported idea of biodiversity?
Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
If you think then you believe since when you think then you believe that puntuated equilibrium CAN explain this trully wonderfull fact, so believe it, if not, what can be the most plausible expalanation?
@chuyaventuras Chordata. The first vertebrates, or creatures with vertebrae or backbones, appear. They came about during the Cambrian explosion and thus the COMMON ANCESTOR of ALL creatures with vertibrae, and yes it was a marine creature. Then over 500 million years evolution created vertebrata, mammalia, etc... all the way to homo sapien, us. Along the way other branches split off on the way to us but to us it did go along the path
except it wouldn't be one instance of speciation but many.
Speciation you said?, the process of speciation what does produce? a new specie of the same basic animal, right?, salamanders produces TWO separate species of salamanders, rabbits produces TWO or more species of.....?right, rabbits, so How can you expect that "speciation" is the driving force behind a weird Cambrian marine creature transformation into humans?, that blows my mind, it should yours.
by what precise criteria are you defining "same basic animal"?
in a speciation event, a new species branches off from a pre-existing branch of the tree of life - and we can trace our branch all the way to Eukaryota.
Really?, you feel so confident in your tale for grown-ups, sorry scientifc myth, oooh nope your theory, do you? I won´t go back that far, you "believe" chimpanzee, bonobos and humans shares a common ancestor five to six millions years ago, What is the name of such a creature and what is your evidence to make such an assertion?
That´s what I thought, finches produces finches a wide variety of different species of finches, pigeons produces pigeon and will bananas as named produces more bananas, but you "BELIEVE" somehow those weird Cambrian marine creatures produced humans, of course given 500 millions years, and you dare to ask my evidence for a preventing mechanism when you have not provided anyone, unless you "believe" that speciation is the mechanism of course, but that´s just your "belief"
and again you're committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts.
you've already been given evidence of common ancestry and basically pretended it did not exist - thus confirming your intellectual dishonesty for all to see.
And again you´re saying that the common ancestor fossils are there but based on what?...a strong "belief" in the scientific myth.-
One more time, Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are told to share a common ancestor, Which one is it? Do you know?, nooope, of course you don´t know, but you "believe" in such a common ancestor and you put the blame on me that I reject the evidence, when you have provided none, is this your last refuge to save your scientific myth or what?
when you asked for just one evidence of common ancestry of the great apes, i gave you 2 - Human Chromosome 2 and common interspecies ERV insertion points - you pretended that they don't exist.
oooh I see, sorry, so basically there is no evidence and you come up with all of this, maybe I blatantly lying but whether you admit it or not you´re blatantly "believing".-
Now, if that´s evidence that humans share a common ancestor, great, but the interpretation (conclusion) of such a facts don´t call it science, you may refer as my "beliefs" based on this facts, capizca?
There were a man outside the White House almost identical to G. W. Bush, remember the story.
other than just pretending evidence doesn't exist, you have not been able to counter common ancestry, and the only point you did make to support your position was to make reference to an undefinable "basic types".
Let´s talk about facts, there was a man outside the White House almos identical to G. W. Bush, that is a fact, based on such a fact and your logic they were TWINS right?, facts are facts, interpretations and conclusions based on those facts are something totally different.-
It´s a fact (hopefully) human chromosome 2, horrible conclusion humans and chimps are related, capizca?
Don´t confound FACTS & CONCLUSIONS, at least don´t believe in the conclusion you´re taught.
Telemeres in the middle?....wooow, it´s evidence of common ancestry, hmmm, unless you have swallowed the insane ideas written by a failed clergy man name Charly,.
Just because a weird Cambrian creature used to be back boned that´s why is your ancestor? this is the most ludicrous claim I have ever heard of?
Those are plain assumptions, in english, HALLUCINATIONS, if they are in text books and lectures on Universities all over the world I will call them "Scientific Hallucinations"
Clearly enough, you haven´t read my previous comment, but since you replied on a very indoctrinated way here you´re my position.-
Evolution is a fact, micro & macro, observed, tested, proven confirmed, NOW, humans descending from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures? hmmmm, I don´t think so, do you?, evolution is the driving mechanism that produced such a fantastic transformation including all the creatures along the way?, in plain inglish, ludicrous, believe it, gullibility
Well, it´s the same as asking, if the scientific myth is not true, Why we don´t find any embryo that does not show all the step of evolution?
That´s all the argument to support your myth or do you have another even more ludicrous?
Well, just in case Why don´t you offer me, "Speciation" or the famous or unfamous it depends, peppered moths, or what about Charly finches, nooope, will be better the bacterias turning resisten to antibiotics.-
First of there are several "strange" creatures that DOES NOT fit at all in any place in your famous nested hierachy, which of course you either will deny or are not awere of them.-
Secondly the INTERPRETATION given to the nested hierarchy is what really counts for Charly worshipers, so Why you still ask such an stupid question?
Once again if you have ANY evidence that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, show meee!
Sure they do, they are still alive and as I thought, you are not eve aware of it.-
Have you been educated or adoctrinated would be my next obvious question.-
As far as I can see, most evolutinisoids willingly or not ignore so many facts, that if they were put all in the table sincerely it will change your view points, but as long as I´ve watched those "evolution lectures" videos on UC Berckeley, etc. none of them teahc evolution as it should.
I´m not dodging the question, first of all I don´t remember the specific name of those creatures and secondly it´s something that you must haver been taught if a good education is given to you, but again, they didn´t touch this issu, Why? because if they did, many questions would arise and the nested hierarchy will be at stake.-
Nested hierarchy and embryos are the same, assumption to support the myth, Why because there is not a single iota fact to support it, plain and simple.
yes, that's the point of me asking you that question. if you answered it, you would have disproved nested hierarchy, and won the debate instantly. instead you claim you have the answer, but conveniently don't remember, and just fill your comment with more crazy ranting.
Nooope, I´m not trying to disprove evolution, which I myself admited it as a fact, I don´t know when but sooner or later I will find the names, but I can assure they do exist and are alive.
But assuming they don´t exist, nested hierarchy DOES NOT prove humans descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian creatures, that´s for sure.
I don´t really care if it´s a theory, a hypothesis or a scientific myth, DON´T teach that humans descend from ANYONE of those weird Cambrian marine creature, because it is not true and there is no scientific, verifiable, empirical evidence to support such a claim.- If they want to teach that that´s what biologists "believe" OK, but don´t teach it as a fact when in reality nothing is further from the true, capizca?
well it is a theory. scientists can only work with theories, laws and hypotheses. if people want to be taught science, they're going to get taught what the theory says.
And you believe that such a ludicrous claim of weird Cambrian marine creatures tranforming into humans with all the creatures along the way is scientific? either you have got to be kidding or a strong delusion is hanging upon you, I´m sorry, I see no other option, there is no way to consider such a claim as scientific, I will go on and say it´s a scientific hallucination made in the name of science, that´s all, the greatest stupidity of modern science
Still hallucinating that nested hierarchy it´s evidence that you descend from those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
Listen and listen carefully, or you show me real evidence or you´re a gullible grown-up that believe everything you´re taught by faith, since by definition faith believing without evidence.
Wake up and smell the coffe, read a good biology book, a good one.
I fully comprehend what science is all about an a scientific theory, now tell me, what is supernatural, what does it mean, I do undestand science DOES NOT deal with supernatural, but what does supernatural mean scientificly speaking?
That all the evidence you have to claim that humans descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
Listen, you don´t even realize how ludicrous your arguments are?, but for the shake of this debate, What else can you offer, I´m anxious to "believe" in the modern scientific myth about how we got here and by as educated as you are. What else? because if you don´t something else, hmmm, I would say, this guy have to be kidding.
I know what is comparative anatomy, nested hierarchy, etc, etc, etc, those are scientific facts, the interpetation given to those fact is a scientific hallucination of it´s king, look the bananas and humans DNA is 60% plus similar, that´s is a fact, bananas and humans related? hmmm, nooope, that´s a scientific hallucination taught as science in the University near you.
May I take your YOU HAVE A SPINE as all the evidence you have to assert that humans descend from those weird marine creatures?
Why don´t you admit that all this stuff of transformers you believe is just a scientific myth taught as it were science and that´s why you CAN NOT deffend your possition, admit it, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, that´s HONESTY.
Education is a different story than scientific researches. For a class to be taught (esp. in high school), the material MUST be well supported by scientific researches (i.e. publications in well-edited scientific journals). In research, I really do NOT care if someone is so dedicated to be researching on ID, but our next generation deserves the best science education!
AkasakaS2000 2 months ago
Here's what teaching the controversy is like in practical application:
"Class, we are here to educate you in the science of biology, which includes the theory of evolution. There are people who disagree with the theory of evolution and believe that a supernatural agency of some sort is responsible for the mechanisms of biological life. That is their prerogative. However, since this is a science class, we'll be discussing the science of biology and the theory of evolution."
Controversy covered.
GermanChocolateCake 6 months ago 3
@GermanChocolateCake Cool, but personally I like this one better: /watch?v=TONWyYK8F1k
shanedk 6 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake My personal take on it is:
"All right, class, due to the new mandates that we 'Teach the Controversy' I am required to give you the evidence for Biblical creation as well. So we'll do that right now. Get your pencils out. Is everybody ready? All right: here is the evidence for Biblical creation: [cricket cricket cricket] Are there any questions?"
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk They are theocrats exactly...trying to discredit science and misinform OTHER people's children with their ignorance! It infuriates me to no end. Can you imagine if this were reversed? If the teaching of evolution was forced into the churches and taught to kids in Sunday school?
Lennon4ever1 4 months ago
You forgot "Do not teach evolution!"...That theory is just as whacky as the rest you listed.....
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic You can call it "whacky" all you want (whatever that means), but it's still the best-supported theory in all of science, better even than gravity. Deal with it.
shanedk 6 months ago 2
@shanedk Thank God it's you and not Mr. Post Nobody'sassources guy....You can believe in nonexistant, magic transitional hominidae if you like....Christians can believe that God put dinosaurs fossils there to test their faith if they like.....And I'll just sit here walking the tightrope until a legitimate theory with real evidence is put before me...I hope it's God, would like to see it be evolution, but know that it is probably neither.... ;)
ninjacatmagic 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic It's Virgil0211, though I understand you may have difficulty understanding unfamiliar words. To be proper, you should refer to me, as well as any other among your myriad and obvious superiors, as "sir".
You mean the literally dozens of transitional fossils we've found thus far are imaginary? Do you claim that archaeologists, chemists, geologists, etc, are all lying? That's a hefty accusation to make without evidence.
Thus far, you've deliberately ignored all evidence. Liar.
Virgil0211 6 months ago
@ninjacatmagic And by the way, I do not need to post sources to criticize your logic. I only need to demonstrate an intrinsic flaw in your reasoning. Even as such, I count two sources I provided just off the top of my head,namely the Wikipedia article on the ad hominem fallacy and an article discussing Francis Crick's position on panspermia. Let's chalk this up to yet another lie on your part.
Seriously, where did you go to college? What degree did you get? What was your major?
Virgil0211 6 months ago
There is no "controversy"--at least not a scientific one. Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection is on firmer ground than is Einstein's theory of relativity. The only controversy is POLITICAL, not scientific. If they insist on teaching "the Controversy", then should so in Social Studies or Political Science, and it should include the fact that the "controversy" is a false one cooked up to satisfy a political/religious agenda.
DandAinTac 7 months ago
@DandAinTac
I find it absolutely ludicrous to think that a religious sect demands that schools ‘teach the controversy’ they trumped up about evolution while ignoring the fact that they are just one of about 35,000 sects embroiled in controversies over whose biblical OPINION is the correct one.
egamble22 7 months ago
afriggindalek has been blocked for homophobia.
shanedk 9 months ago
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome has been blocked for homophobia.
shanedk 9 months ago
This is a great video with well supported opinions - it's really convincing - but I can't shake the fact that the music in the background and the tamber of your voice combined make it feel like some creationist videos I've seen before.
colossus999 1 year ago
"To teach the geocentric and heliocentric models together as if hey were equal and encouraging the students to make up their own mind..." It's been done: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems by Galileo (except that he didn't treat them equally, and thus arose a lot of his later problems when he cast the Pope on the loosing side.)
Condensed text: webexhibits(.)org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
puncheex 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome I agree with you 100%... but the moddle of the earth is rottating backwards XD
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 It wasn't my animation.
shanedk 1 year ago
I have no problems with Creationism being taught... but only in religion classes. :)
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
the earth was created in 1982! you're all going to burn heretics! humans were made out of jello pudding and sand!
cruciphile 1 year ago
How about this. Creationsim is based on a religious belief. Use your religious establishment to teach it.
BlueShreveport 1 year ago
Can you believe that there is going to be a conference in Indiana this month on geo-centrisim?
panterguy 1 year ago
@panterguy Geez...where?
shanedk 1 year ago
I wish I could be a christian and watch this to be converted all over again.
It has some very good points.
Thumbs up.
ermac2222 1 year ago
When you say "not teach" I assume you mean in the lab or as scientific fact. Such world views do have some sociological value if not scientific.
NAFmunchausen 1 year ago
@NAFmunchausen Yes, I mean in science class.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I can think of a reason to teach them in science class: for the purpose of refuting them!
e.g. showing some of your creationist videos to a high school science class.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome Well, yeah, but that's not "teaching the controversy." That's teaching why there is NO controversy in scientific circles.
I do think science teachers should be equipped to refute these arguments when students bring them up.
shanedk 1 year ago 4
@shanedk
I thought you and NAFmunchausen were talking about creationism, not "teaching the controversy".
But yeah, I gottcha.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Teach the flaws of every strawman argument.
FluffyBunniesOnFire 1 year ago
shane
You DID NOT understand the question so far, NAME just ONE advancement in science due to a bunch of pseu-scientists DID apply the idea, concept or notion that Humans descend from one of those weird Cambrian creatures?
By the way what does the challenge of getting a drug that pass through the blood/brain barrier has to do with weird Cambrian marine creatures turning into humans?
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
It has to do with how mutagenic HIV-1 is. We know that evolution is not random, and therefore there must be a finite number of ways that HIV-1 has of mutating a resistance to drugs. So all you need to do is close off all of those evolutionary doors and you've killed all the HIV-1 cells. THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE LAB.
And it would have been IMPOSSIBLE without the very theory that tells us all life evolved from a common ancestor.
shanedk 1 year ago
shane
We observe HIV-1 mutating to a resistence to drugs, that´s what we observe, and from that observation you conclude that all life evolved from a bacteria?, even at virus level such a ludicrous claim is contrary to the irrational conlcusion itself...
You know evolution is not random and therefore there must be a finite number of ways tha HIV-1 has of mutating a resistence to drugs, so you´re are SURE that no matter how many mutation ocurres HIV-1 ALLWAYS will be a HIV virus, got it?
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
shane
Once again and for the thousandth time you just confirmed what I´ve been arguing ever since, HIV virus after a finite number of mutations remain a HIV virus, even at virus level virus ONLY brings forth only mutated virus, Did you understand it so far?
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
Don't feed the troll chuya, he is too slow to get it anyway.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I like feeding trolls. It makes me feel like I have a virtual pet. ; )
UserNr001 1 year ago
If we were to teach the controversy, we should teach the earliest pagan creation myth - because that's controversial for both sides, so that's real controversy. And the earliest myth ought to be considered as the most realistic one, since it was first.
UserNr001 1 year ago 2
@UserNr001
We should not teach ANY myth, that´s why the modern scientific myth that claims with no evidence whatsoever that humans descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, and even worse ALL those weird Cambrian marine creatures descend from a bacteria or something like that, should not be taught at any education level, but unfortunatelly it´s taught all over the world, and even worse it´s taught as it were science, that´s real offense to the human intellect.
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
My previous comment's supposed to be sarcastic. What I meant to show that people who want their creation myth to be taught because they think "we should teach the controversy", don't want to be taught anything that's controversial to themselves. So they're hyporcites.
We shouldn't teach any creation myths. We should only teach evolution, because it's a theory based on facts. Just like gravity. Intelligent design is based on creation myth. Designer = creator. Creator = creation.
UserNr001 1 year ago
@UserNr001
So basically we must teach a fairy tale?
Imagine, teaching our children that they descend from a worm like creature, that´s bizarre and irrational.
Once upon a time there was a population of weird Cambrian that believe it or not they decided not to live in the water any longer so throughtout a series of transformation turned into humans, right?
Nooope my friend such a claim is myth, a scientific myth but a 100% a myth, I hope you are enought to understand.
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
@ chuyaventuras
"Once upon a time there was a population of weird Cambrian that believe it or not they decided not to live in the water any longer so throughtout a series of transformation turned into humans, right?"
Quite right. First they had simple membranes allowing for gas exchange so they could breathe underwater & on land. Those remaining on land evolved lungs & those in water - gills. Just google evolution of lungs or gills - plenty of articles & scientific papers explaining that.
UserNr001 1 year ago
@chuyaventuras Hey there religitard troll. Mind pointing to some sources that PROVE or even give reasonable credibility to Evolution being a myth? And nothing 'decides' to change what it is, it's called mutation and even now humans show signs of mutation AND the activation of certain dormant genes. Babies born with tails are clear evidence for common ancestry with monkeys and other apes (yes we ARE ape's).
redwolf602 5 months ago
@UserNr001
A theory based on facts? Really, Which facts support the irrational and bizarre idea, concept or notion that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?, There is no way to make a ludicrous claim as that if you don´t believe in a myth, the scientific myth taught as science, there is no known mechanism/evidence that sucha fantastic transformtation ever took place.
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
@chuyaventuras
You seem to be obsessed with "those weird Cambrian marine creatures". You mention them a lot.
UserNr001 1 year ago
"The explosion may not have been a significant evolutionary event. It may represent a threshold being crossed: for example a threshold in genetic complexity that allowed a vast range of morphological forms to be employed."
Source: Solé, R.V., Fernández, P., and Kauffman, S.A. (2003). "Adaptive walks in a gene network model of morphogenesis: insights into the Cambrian explosion".
UserNr001 1 year ago
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began.
fossilmuseum . net / Paleobiology / CambrianExplosion . htm
UserNr001 1 year ago
And let's keep in mind that in this context, "sudden and spontaneous" is about 60 MILLION years.
shanedk 1 year ago
Don't feed the chuya troll.
gregrutz 1 year ago
My response would would be "What controversy"? The only thing contraversial about ID is that its bullshit masquerading as science.
DarkAngel182 1 year ago 2
Please do not try to educate the uneducated, they will just steal your jobs if they become functional beings. McDonalds needs workers and I need my breakfast sandwich. Quit trying to upset the balance of nature by teaching facts. Their God wants them to stay poor and ignorant, respect for your fellow man dictates you do not interfere.
crossoldman 2 years ago
@crossoldman
I do assume to be educated is believing that you descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, if that`s what you say, I´d rather be uneducated.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Good for you Chuyavetures, that's a great attitude! I say ignore reality and let emotions rule your life. Jesus has provided all the answers you'll ever need to life's deep mysteries and He gave you the cell phone and computers so you can be entertained while you flip the burgers. Ignorance truly is bliss, never forget it.
crossoldman 1 year ago
@crossoldman
What does cell phones or computers have to do with the bizarre, absurd and stupid idea that you descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures? By the way tell me just ONE advancement in science that has been, just one where scientists have applied this ludicrous concept, notion or idea?
I don´t want a bunch of them, I know there are a lot, but show me just ONE, hmmm
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
Now now, Chuy don't worry your head about such things. Why if you keep asking those kind of questions you'll make God mad. We both know you have no desire to really learn anything or you would be off thinking and reading a high school text book on the subject. Now go have a nice lie down, put an ice pack on that over heated brain and relax. You already have all the answers. Repeat after me :God done it, God done it, Jesus provides, I is smart because I know God done it.
crossoldman 1 year ago
@crossoldman
I did read "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton, it´s an excelent book on the subjet, I encourage you to read it too, there is a lot of real science there, and please halt repeating in your mind, mutations + plus natural selection + time is the driving mechanism that turned a bacteria or something like into ALL the plants and animals living and extinct, that is really absurd and certainly non-scientific, I bet you, I encourage you not to read talk-origins, it`s worse
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
@crossoldman
Good for you crossold...ignore paleontology and let the scientific myth rule your belief, that´s a great attitute towrd science, isn´t it? hmmm, I don´t think so, do you?
chuyaventuras 1 year ago
You have done the correct thing Chuyie. Never read an actual text book on a subject when you can read a biased book that supports your predetermined conclusions. After all if the Discovery Institute isn't an authority on the subject, who is? I encourage you to stop questioning as it will put your eternal state of bliss in jeopardy. You have gone beyond what God demands of you and read a book. Why pursue the matter any further? Genesis has provided all the answers you need.
crossoldman 1 year ago
regardless of your strawman argument or your view of the idea - the evidence disagrees with you and all - down to every little detail - supports evolutionary theory and exclusively evolutionary theory.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Strowman argument ?
Don´t be so sure, you have failed over and over again to give just ONE observed example where a creature does not bring forth after its basic type of creature, offering evolution as the driving mechanism for such an incredible transformation is totally unsupported by the observational data, but you do "believe" it does, there is no way to reason that way unless you have gone totally insane.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
since you have yet to provide a working definition for "basic type", the challenge is meaningless.
Give a definition to basic type within the constraints of what evolutionary theory claims, and i'll give you examples.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
@chuyaventuras We'll classify 'basic type' into mammal, bird, reptile, etc... for this one ok? Archosaur were creatures that roamed the land in the days of old (that's code for millions of years ago) and were not just ONE 'type' of creature but TWO! They had traits for being both avian (bird) and crocodillia (reptiles, more specifically crocodiles). Kirk Cameron was right that if evolution were true we should have seen some crocoducks, and we have evidence they existed.
redwolf602 5 months ago
Don't feed the troll, chuyaventuras
gregrutz 2 years ago
It's actually a scary thing if ID was taught in schools alongside Science. I hope that creationism crap stays out of schools. Creation is taught in church or in Sunday school, or whatever. Keep that crap out of public schools.
bissonnettekoff 2 years ago 3
"Science doesn't work one way for one person and one way for another."
No matter what those post-modernist morons tell you.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 2
ok i said tiktaalik was fish/lizard, I should've said fish/amphibian. but the point still stands, it's a transitional form.
Fernoe 2 years ago
It's fish/tetrapod; close enough.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fernoe
But the point still stand...
It is a "hallucination-al fossil", as the rest of them.
Listen, it´s ok for science to investigate and expain how the natural world works, but when it comes to origins it makes a horrible, ludicrous and plain stupid work, hopefully you can understand what I said
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
What is your alternative chuyaventuras? What do you think happened? How do you explain the fossils? How do you explain genetic descent? How do you explain comparative physiology?
PinkProgram 2 years ago 2
Pink
My goal is not to offer any alternative explanation, but for sure the explanation that is taught as science is just a modern scientific myth, I bet you.-
First of all, What happened? what do you think happened if most phylas the very fisrt time they appeared suddenly and fully formed with no trace of any ancestor?
What happened if all creatures remained unchanged during their ternure ONLY to vanish and be replaced by new totally new creatures? What alternative explanation could you offer
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
"My goal is not to offer any alternative explanation"
And that's why you're a lying coward.
IF the species just vanished with new ones being created, then why does it look EXACTLY like they slowly changed into each other over millions of years?
shanedk 2 years ago
shane
Hi, shane, how are you doing?
That´s exactly what you have choosen to believe by faith and contrary to the observational data, you better than me know exactly what the fossil record is all about, if you don´t know get your education in paleontology, but I DON´T think is your case, you´re willingly ignorant of what the fossil record is all about and agains any one who does not want to admit what the observational data tell us, sorry for you.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You obviously have not observed the true fossil record chuyaventuras. Since you are not providing an alternate explanation for true data it seems you are trying to provide alternate data that does not match facts ^_^ Since I don't use faith I verify every fact I am presented with. Your argument does not pass verification.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Pinky
You have no idea what the fossil record is all about...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless...S, G, Gould.-
Forget about the Punctuated equilibrium and quote mine or out of context arguments.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
No, they don't, and you know it, so you're LYING again. You've been SHOWN the slow gradation from land vertebrates to whales. You've been SHOWN the morphing from lobe-finned fish to tetrapods. And yet, you LIE.
ALL CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS.
shanedk 2 years ago
Incorrect. Creationism is a lie. Creationists are people who believe a lie. A lot of them do not have the intention to lie. They are just not very bright. And that might be an understatement.
MisterScrutinizer 2 years ago
I've yet to encounter one that didn't resort to outright lies when the evidence for evolution was presented.
shanedk 2 years ago
Until you've met all of them, you cannot honestly say "all creationists are liars" - just playing the devil's advocate here. I get your frustration :)
I really don't understand where you get the energy to keep on responding to this utter stupidity.
MisterScrutinizer 2 years ago
I keep saying it because I want one of them to prove me wrong. So far, they haven't.
shanedk 2 years ago
That's odd : you KNOW they can't prove you wrong, so you'll keep saying it till the end of times ...
MisterScrutinizer 2 years ago
All they have to do to prove me wrong is stop lying. Yet, they don't. Or at least, the ones that do don't stay creationists for long.
shanedk 2 years ago
Ah, I get it, wrong about creationists being liars. Didn't get that the first time :)
MisterScrutinizer 2 years ago
The reason: Evolution is a fact.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
shane
Have I been shown the slow gradation from land to what?, Nooope, you have offered a serie of creatures that lived in the past that you assume, conjeture, hallucinate that are whales ancestors, imagine in a court room, your honor pakicetues evolved into whales and I have proof of it, just look at the inner ear structure, He is going to laugh of you, so I.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
We have the nostrils gradually moving back to become a blowhole. We have the back limbs gradually disappearing. We have the front limbs gradually becoming flippers. We have the melon organ gradually appearing. All that and more IN ADDITION TO things like inner ear structure.
Again, you KNOW this, and you're LYING.
shanedk 2 years ago
shane
You assume, conjeture or hallucinate that you have nostrils gradually moving back, those are deep scientific hallucinations to support your scientific myth based on Charly ideas, in reallity you have none, but if you believe in such a plain stupidities, enjoy yourself, enjoy your "transformers" scientific myth, but I can tell you something in order to believe you descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures you have to have lost your reasoning.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
No, it is NOT a hallucination. Ambulocetus has nostrils at the end of its snout; in Protocetus and Rhodocetus, they're slightly further back; in Durodon, it's more than midway up the snout; and finally, in Squalodon, it's a proper blowhole above the snout.
THIS IS NOT HALLUCINATING. These are the ACTUAL FOSSILS. So get over your pathetic hallucination kick; this is REAL.
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane
First of all, I´ve not said the evolution is not true, I repeatedly have said that evolution micro & macro is true, What I´ve been arguing is that evolution CAN NOT be offered as the explanation on how you descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, capizca?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You have NO IDEA how contradictory you are right now, please excuse me while I slap your grandmother....
338dmac 2 years ago
But evolution IS that very explanation, so you're just talking around yourself there. You can't say evolution is true but common descent isn't. That's trying to have it both ways.
shanedk 2 years ago
so macro evolution is true, but you think you think cambrian era creatures couldn't have become modern creatures over BILLIONS of years?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ferno
Noooo, I don´t only don´t believe, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support such a ludicrous claim, that is the greatest stupidity claim ever made by those who advocate to the scientific myth based on a failed clergy man ideas called Charly
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
the problem here is people give you examples of how there is evidence of one species making a very big change into another species, evidence that scientists have used the theory of evolution to make very accurate predictions, and your only arguments against it is it's 'hallucational' or that it's assumed. you haven't given any reason to your arguments.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fer
The problem here is that people as you and ALL evolutionoids defend the stupid idea that humans descend from ONE (populations if you will) of those weird Cambrian marine creatures and offer no evidence for such a ludicrous claim, THAT IS the problem, and when asked resort to EVEN more ludicrous arguments.-
Show me your evidence that such a fantastic & ludicrous claim is true, and you win, that simple.
A species making a very big change into another species? Hmmm, which species?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
if you paid any attention to ANY of the comments over the last 3 MONTHS, you'd know which species.
Fernoe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fern
You believe on a scientific myth, a fairty tale for grown-ups if you will that goes like this:
If a frog turns into a Prince is a tale for kids, isn´t it? but if you give 500 millions years to a POPULATION of those weird Cambrian marine creatures will turn not only into humans but into a serie of very different creatures along the way and you call this science, when in reality it´s a fairy tale that claims that a life form can turn into another totally different life form, period.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
By that same token, it's a fairy tale to be able to fly by flapping your arms, therefore birds and bats are myths.
shanedk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shana
Do you have a better argument other than this? you look pathetic, come on, I love you when you use this ludicrous arguments, just curios, is there any manual where all this stuff is gathered together, everyone of you uses the same arguments.-
Shane, you believe in a fairy tale for gullible grown-ups whether you admit it or not, it´s been shown over and over again, Why you insist making a fool of yourself, don´t defend the transformer scientific myth unless you have real evidence
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
shane
BTW I´ve not forgotten your question, I´m just reserving the answer with a built in question, that eve you´ll agree it has been confirmed over and over again by the observational data, you´ll love it.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
and why is it a fairy tale?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
A frog turns into ....
A weird Cambrian marine creature (population if you will) turns into...
The frog turns into instantaneously...
The weird Cambrian creatures takes 500 millions ...
A frog turning into a Prince, has never been observed and there is no evidence that this could happen...
No creature has never been observed to turn into something other than the same type of creature...and there is no evidence whatsoever that this could ever happened....
both are fairy tales
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
before that statement can be evaluated, you'll need to clearly define but what you mean by 'type' of creature.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
type...
Salamanders produces salamanders, different species according to a modern scientific definition, but I can assure that ANY of those weird Cambrian marine creatures is a totally different type, kind of species than humans, and that´s what you basically "belive" and attemping to explain how such a fantastic, ludicrous and certainly unscientific claim you offer evolution as the driving mechanism, obviously this has never been observed to happened in the real world.-
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
if by type you mean species then 1) you should have just said species and 2) formation of new species has been observed repeatedly both in the lab and in the wild.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Again you´re thinking to much, but let´s test your "beliefs" after you did think.
Do you think and then believe that such an observerd process of speciation explains how ONE of those weird Cambrian very slowly changed into humans? sure you believe, so stop thinking because the more you think the more you believe, or change your pseudo-name to ThinkMoreBelieveMore.
Capizca?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
if you study a bit of paleontology and taxonomy, it's actually quite well explained - except it wouldn't be one instance of speciation but many. considering the number of generations since then, it's not all that surprising.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
That´s what I thought, the more you think the more you believe.-
Read my comment I just post to shane, let´s save time and grieg.-
Once again try to think less lest you believe more non-sense, and certainly ANTI-SCIENTIFIC tales.-
Take care.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
That's not "types," that's the nested hierarchy. Yes, salamanders produce salamanders--and if they produced anything else, evolution would be FALSIFIED.
I would think you would have tired of showing your profound ignorance by now...
shanedk 2 years ago
shane
You just show your profound, insurmountable willingly ignorance of the scientific observed facts, it´s worthless but you´re again, roses produces roses a huge variety of them, will bananas have prouduced bananas a wide variety of them, finches through out selected breeding produces a wide variety of finches, but you BELIEVE one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures or a population as you said produced almost everything else we see today, you have got to be hallucinating
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
shane
Once again you show me your profound misunderstanding what I´m arguing against to, this is not the first time that you do not capizca my words, but again, I´m not arguing against evolution, evolution CAN NOT BE falsified since has been observed, tested, proven, confirmed, CAPIZCA?.-
What is the most stupid, ludicrous, bizarre AND anti-scientific is to offer evolution as the driving mechanism that TRANSFORMED one creatures into another totally different of course given enought time.-
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
nested hierarchy can be falsified
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
And you believe that nested hierachy it´s evidence that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
No way, wake up, stop using those kind or arguments, if you have any real evidence that can support you belief, show me.-
Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies, obviously nested hierarchy interpretation is based on the assumption that the scientific myth is true, right?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Fernoe
no, the talus bone is the wrong shape for proto-primates. it matches the shape of an apes talus bone. it also doesn't have a grooming claw or a tooth comb. ida also had opposable thumbs.-
And this is enough evidence to consider humans share a common ancestor with IDA?, you have got to be kidding.
Remember the man outside the White House, never forget him, always keep him in mind.-
That´s is the interpretation given from those who holds a strong advocacy in Charly ideas, that´s all
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well seeing as that talus bone doesn't appear in any other animal, other than apes and ida, and that scientists predicted that, what other conclusion is there?
Fernoe 2 years ago 2
Ferno
Well done, so basically the talus bone argument plus a high advocacy in the scientific myth of transformer based on a failed clergy man ideas, IDA shares a common ancestor? wooow, and if we move back to the Cambrian era just becasue a weird Cambrian creatures was back boned is evidence that humans descend from such a creature, right? in english, that´s plain ludicrous and certainly ANTI-SCIENCE, a superior presumption based on a scientific myth, good job, best way to do science.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well then how about you disprove nested hierarchy? should be pretty easy.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
it also doesn't have a grooming claw or a tooth comb. ida also had opposable thumbs
It also proves that there is no evidence to suppoprt your scientific myth, so evidence has to be manufactured.-
Give up, there is no evidence to claim that one creatures can turn into another totally different creature of course given enough time, (transformers theory) other than assumptions or hallucinations, if you have any pleaser do so, but don´t bring to the debate table ludricous ones.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
good job quote mining there.
Fernoe 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore.
The more you think freely if you will, the more you believe, imagine, you believe humans, chimpanzees and bonobos shares a common ancestor with no evidence whatsoever, so think less lest you believe in more ludicrous claims.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
no evidence whatsoever?
you mean things like Human Chromosome 2 and common interspecies ERV insertion points?
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Once again thinking more believing more, Human Chromosome 2 and common interspecies ERV insertion points, well if that is the interpretation that you BELIEVE THE MOST which of course is totally based on scientific myth started by a failed clergy man called Charly, continue thinking and believing
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well, thank you for your confession that your problem isn't that there's a lack of evidence since there's plenty but rather that dogmatically reject evidence if it's presented to you.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
The more you "think" the more you "believe" with no evidence whatsoever blows my mind.-
Now that you mention it, Show me just ONE evidence, JUST ONE, that you descend from ONE (population if you will) of those too weird Cambrian marine creatures, I´m not asking too much, am I? JUST ONE EVIDENCE.
"Think about it" you believe I don´t know how you "think" of this, that you descend from one of those weird creatures, and that´s a ! belief ! of its own.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
besides that moving the goalposts, you've also already demonstrated that you have no interest in actual evidence thus it would be an effort in futility to do so.
but while we're on the topic of human evolution, what mechanism can you present that makes it impossible, and what is your evidence-supported idea of biodiversity?
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Well, let´s reviw the evidence.-
Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
If you think then you believe since when you think then you believe that puntuated equilibrium CAN explain this trully wonderfull fact, so believe it, if not, what can be the most plausible expalanation?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
@chuyaventuras Chordata. The first vertebrates, or creatures with vertebrae or backbones, appear. They came about during the Cambrian explosion and thus the COMMON ANCESTOR of ALL creatures with vertibrae, and yes it was a marine creature. Then over 500 million years evolution created vertebrata, mammalia, etc... all the way to homo sapien, us. Along the way other branches split off on the way to us but to us it did go along the path
redwolf602 5 months ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
except it wouldn't be one instance of speciation but many.
Speciation you said?, the process of speciation what does produce? a new specie of the same basic animal, right?, salamanders produces TWO separate species of salamanders, rabbits produces TWO or more species of.....?right, rabbits, so How can you expect that "speciation" is the driving force behind a weird Cambrian marine creature transformation into humans?, that blows my mind, it should yours.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
by what precise criteria are you defining "same basic animal"?
in a speciation event, a new species branches off from a pre-existing branch of the tree of life - and we can trace our branch all the way to Eukaryota.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Really?, you feel so confident in your tale for grown-ups, sorry scientifc myth, oooh nope your theory, do you? I won´t go back that far, you "believe" chimpanzee, bonobos and humans shares a common ancestor five to six millions years ago, What is the name of such a creature and what is your evidence to make such an assertion?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
we've already been over the evidence - you just pretended it doesn't exist.
what's your evidence for a mechanism preventing it?
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
That´s what I thought, finches produces finches a wide variety of different species of finches, pigeons produces pigeon and will bananas as named produces more bananas, but you "BELIEVE" somehow those weird Cambrian marine creatures produced humans, of course given 500 millions years, and you dare to ask my evidence for a preventing mechanism when you have not provided anyone, unless you "believe" that speciation is the mechanism of course, but that´s just your "belief"
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
and again you're committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts.
you've already been given evidence of common ancestry and basically pretended it did not exist - thus confirming your intellectual dishonesty for all to see.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBeliverMore
And again you´re saying that the common ancestor fossils are there but based on what?...a strong "belief" in the scientific myth.-
One more time, Chimpanzees, bonobos and humans are told to share a common ancestor, Which one is it? Do you know?, nooope, of course you don´t know, but you "believe" in such a common ancestor and you put the blame on me that I reject the evidence, when you have provided none, is this your last refuge to save your scientific myth or what?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
and now you're blatantly lying.
when you asked for just one evidence of common ancestry of the great apes, i gave you 2 - Human Chromosome 2 and common interspecies ERV insertion points - you pretended that they don't exist.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
oooh I see, sorry, so basically there is no evidence and you come up with all of this, maybe I blatantly lying but whether you admit it or not you´re blatantly "believing".-
Now, if that´s evidence that humans share a common ancestor, great, but the interpretation (conclusion) of such a facts don´t call it science, you may refer as my "beliefs" based on this facts, capizca?
There were a man outside the White House almost identical to G. W. Bush, remember the story.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
you're beliefs based on facts? that's funny.
other than just pretending evidence doesn't exist, you have not been able to counter common ancestry, and the only point you did make to support your position was to make reference to an undefinable "basic types".
once again, typical creationist dishonesty.
ThinkMoreBelieveLess 2 years ago
ThinkMoreBelieveMore
Let´s talk about facts, there was a man outside the White House almos identical to G. W. Bush, that is a fact, based on such a fact and your logic they were TWINS right?, facts are facts, interpretations and conclusions based on those facts are something totally different.-
It´s a fact (hopefully) human chromosome 2, horrible conclusion humans and chimps are related, capizca?
Don´t confound FACTS & CONCLUSIONS, at least don´t believe in the conclusion you´re taught.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
"Let´s talk about facts, there was a man outside the White House almos identical to G. W. Bush, that is a fact"
Who is he?
"based on such a fact and your logic they were TWINS right?"
Depends. Are they genetically identical?
We are NOT talking about a superficial resemblance here. Why would Chromosome 2 even HAVE telomeres in the middle?
shanedk 2 years ago
shane
Hi shane...
Nooope, it´s not based on my logic is based on your scientific myth logic.-
Just because a creatures had a talus bone similarity it´s enought to classify it as a human ancestor? you have got to be kidding.-
Just because a creature used to have a inner ear similarity it´s enought to classify it as a whale ancestor? you have got to be hallucinating.-
Come one, do good science not plain non-sense and non-science or worst ANTI-SCIENCE.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
shane
Telemeres in the middle?....wooow, it´s evidence of common ancestry, hmmm, unless you have swallowed the insane ideas written by a failed clergy man name Charly,.
Just because a weird Cambrian creature used to be back boned that´s why is your ancestor? this is the most ludicrous claim I have ever heard of?
Those are plain assumptions, in english, HALLUCINATIONS, if they are in text books and lectures on Universities all over the world I will call them "Scientific Hallucinations"
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
yeh you tell him.
Why not add to it, just because we develop medicine from the very theory you're outright denying despite the evidence doesn't mean it's real.
Also just because we can observe the effects of gravity doesn't mean to say it's real.
I know, why not deny everything that has ever come from science because you clearly don't care for evidence.
manhunt48 2 years ago
man
Clearly enough, you haven´t read my previous comment, but since you replied on a very indoctrinated way here you´re my position.-
Evolution is a fact, micro & macro, observed, tested, proven confirmed, NOW, humans descending from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures? hmmmm, I don´t think so, do you?, evolution is the driving mechanism that produced such a fantastic transformation including all the creatures along the way?, in plain inglish, ludicrous, believe it, gullibility
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well if that's the case, why aren't we finding any fossils that disprove nested hierarchy?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ferno
Well, it´s the same as asking, if the scientific myth is not true, Why we don´t find any embryo that does not show all the step of evolution?
That´s all the argument to support your myth or do you have another even more ludicrous?
Well, just in case Why don´t you offer me, "Speciation" or the famous or unfamous it depends, peppered moths, or what about Charly finches, nooope, will be better the bacterias turning resisten to antibiotics.-
Listen, if you have EVIDENCES, show me.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
so basically you can't answer the question. thought so.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ferno
Sure, I can, the answer is this:
First of there are several "strange" creatures that DOES NOT fit at all in any place in your famous nested hierachy, which of course you either will deny or are not awere of them.-
Secondly the INTERPRETATION given to the nested hierarchy is what really counts for Charly worshipers, so Why you still ask such an stupid question?
Once again if you have ANY evidence that you descend from ONE of those weird Cambrian marine creatures, show meee!
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
what are these 'strange creatures'? do they have a name?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
Sure they do, they are still alive and as I thought, you are not eve aware of it.-
Have you been educated or adoctrinated would be my next obvious question.-
As far as I can see, most evolutinisoids willingly or not ignore so many facts, that if they were put all in the table sincerely it will change your view points, but as long as I´ve watched those "evolution lectures" videos on UC Berckeley, etc. none of them teahc evolution as it should.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
and what are they called? which ones? don't just dodge the question like that
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
I´m not dodging the question, first of all I don´t remember the specific name of those creatures and secondly it´s something that you must haver been taught if a good education is given to you, but again, they didn´t touch this issu, Why? because if they did, many questions would arise and the nested hierarchy will be at stake.-
Nested hierarchy and embryos are the same, assumption to support the myth, Why because there is not a single iota fact to support it, plain and simple.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
yes, that's the point of me asking you that question. if you answered it, you would have disproved nested hierarchy, and won the debate instantly. instead you claim you have the answer, but conveniently don't remember, and just fill your comment with more crazy ranting.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ferno
Nooope, I´m not trying to disprove evolution, which I myself admited it as a fact, I don´t know when but sooner or later I will find the names, but I can assure they do exist and are alive.
But assuming they don´t exist, nested hierarchy DOES NOT prove humans descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian creatures, that´s for sure.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
i didn't say you was trying disprove evolution, you're arguing against things I never even said.
'nested hierarchy DOES NOT prove humans descend from ANY of those weird Cambrian creatures'
why doesn't it?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Ferno
Why does it?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
because it fits everything the scientific method would require for it to be classed as a theory.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
I don´t really care if it´s a theory, a hypothesis or a scientific myth, DON´T teach that humans descend from ANYONE of those weird Cambrian marine creature, because it is not true and there is no scientific, verifiable, empirical evidence to support such a claim.- If they want to teach that that´s what biologists "believe" OK, but don´t teach it as a fact when in reality nothing is further from the true, capizca?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
well it is a theory. scientists can only work with theories, laws and hypotheses. if people want to be taught science, they're going to get taught what the theory says.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
And you believe that such a ludicrous claim of weird Cambrian marine creatures tranforming into humans with all the creatures along the way is scientific? either you have got to be kidding or a strong delusion is hanging upon you, I´m sorry, I see no other option, there is no way to consider such a claim as scientific, I will go on and say it´s a scientific hallucination made in the name of science, that´s all, the greatest stupidity of modern science
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
found those species that disprove nested hierarchy yet?
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
Still hallucinating that nested hierarchy it´s evidence that you descend from those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
Listen and listen carefully, or you show me real evidence or you´re a gullible grown-up that believe everything you´re taught by faith, since by definition faith believing without evidence.
Wake up and smell the coffe, read a good biology book, a good one.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
nested hierarchy *is* the evidence.
Fernoe 2 years ago
Fernoe
I fully comprehend what science is all about an a scientific theory, now tell me, what is supernatural, what does it mean, I do undestand science DOES NOT deal with supernatural, but what does supernatural mean scientificly speaking?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
scientificly speaking? supernatural isn't scientific, so it's irrelevant to science
Fernoe 2 years ago
Every animal on the planet descends from one of those weird cambrian creatures :) Those that don't have descendants went extinct :3
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Pink
So humans descend from ONE (population if you will) of those weird Cambrian creatures, right?
Which one is it and Why?
What evidence can you offer me for such a ludicrous claim?
Warning, speculations, assumptions are not acceptable, we´re talking about science as you said.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
They are descended from chordates which are descended from a population of those cambrian creatures. You have a spine right?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Pink
Yes, I do a spine, so what?
That all the evidence you have to claim that humans descend from one of those weird Cambrian marine creatures?
Listen, you don´t even realize how ludicrous your arguments are?, but for the shake of this debate, What else can you offer, I´m anxious to "believe" in the modern scientific myth about how we got here and by as educated as you are. What else? because if you don´t something else, hmmm, I would say, this guy have to be kidding.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Do you honestly want me to step by step teach you comparative anatomy, taxonomy, gene sequencing etc?
All creatures that have a spine are descended from the first chordate which is a cambrian creature, an early cambrian creature :3
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Pink
I know what is comparative anatomy, nested hierarchy, etc, etc, etc, those are scientific facts, the interpetation given to those fact is a scientific hallucination of it´s king, look the bananas and humans DNA is 60% plus similar, that´s is a fact, bananas and humans related? hmmm, nooope, that´s a scientific hallucination taught as science in the University near you.
Capizca?
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
Why oh why do I feed trolls :3
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Pink
May I take your YOU HAVE A SPINE as all the evidence you have to assert that humans descend from those weird marine creatures?
Why don´t you admit that all this stuff of transformers you believe is just a scientific myth taught as it were science and that´s why you CAN NOT deffend your possition, admit it, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, that´s HONESTY.
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
You asked for one piece of evidence and that is a very large piece of evidence that you couldn't function without.
What do you think humans are descended from?
PinkProgram 2 years ago