Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

My point is that the behavior of homosapiens didn't exist prior to homosapiens existing and thus causing the species to be created. Behavior of a species certainly can lead to survival for that species but it can't preexist before the species.

It would also be presumptuous to point to a behavior and claim that is the specific reason for the survival of the species if you can't show how specifically that leads to survival. Believing in one of thousands of creation myths doesn't lead to one group surviving better than a group that believes in a different creation myth.

The winner is normally whoever has the bigger gun, not the bigger God.

You dont think that empathy or cleverness, or developing of social bonds wasnt an evolutionary advance? We shouldnt be convinced that only the structural elements had anything to do with us becoming us.

Yes, that is part of how humans survive. But was it a gradual process that has changed homosapiens over time? Or was it always there from ancestors? Apes have social bonds and are clever enough to use limited tools.

Religion and mythology have been ways humans have used to try to understand the why and how of their surroundings. Moving away from religion doesn't mean humans lose their ability or desire to try to understand. I agree with Spendi from the standpoint that humans would be worse off if we abandoned our creative pursuits but they shouldn't overwhelm our desire to understand the real world. It is the understanding of the real world that helps us survive in it while the creative side may give us meaning for that survival.

Consider 2 early humans facing a predator. One merely opens his arms and prays to his God for deliverance. The other grabs a pointed stick and prays to his God for help in fighting off the beast. I think we can all agree which one is more likely to survive the encounter.

It is an easy thing to say, "I did something because God was on my side." But the reality is, it still has to be done in the real world. That doesn't mean God exists. It more likely means God is a human construct to help us try to cope with the real world.

A: Seek, and ye shall multiply.

Before you go too far afield with digression, this above was what I was spwcifically comenting upon. You seem to define the evolutionary significant features of Homo sapiesn sapiens as those which are preserved in fossils. Many physiological features wont show up. These are things like, Mitochondrial makeup, dietary prefernces, complexity of brain, and, in the eyes of many paleoanthropologists, Social behavior. These social behavior items are equally pathways to ou rising humanity, they werent necessarily a consequence of it.

We could start an entire thread about this , but as I told shpendi, this aint the thread for that topic. The only reason I insist on that is to try to keep this thread somewhat on topic through it all.

But not clever enough to develop them. When development of tools reaches a certain stage of effectiveness a division of labour comes into operation whereby occupations begin to fall into two distinct categories. The change happens very gradually. The two groups would be those honorofic occupations which involve prowess in the use of the tools and their manufacture and those which simply require diligence of the type of a monkey bringing a banana within reach with a stick. Any stick. Any monkey. And never going to be capable of bringing large game into the food supply of the group which would enable it to expand on Malthusian principles or protect it from them or expand its territory.

Hence hunting and warlike prowess grows as an institution as its success allows the exemption of more individuals from ordinary diligent labour and is in the hands of the fittest men and coalesces into a class separate from the women and the infirm. One might see its totems today on the superfluous ornamentation on farmerman's shotguns assuming they are quality guns. Thus is linked the institution of predation with a class of fierce males and with invidious ornamentation designed to show exemption from taboo occupations. (see football insignia). The predatory culture is then on the move. It's barbarian physiognomy can be seen on every news broadcast in one form or another. The predatory animals are components of all the heraldic artefacts. The lion and the eagle. And a woman in a nightie holding a torch aloft. (a product of French art btw). Defensive emulation, an oft forgotten aspect of life, leads to tribal wars and the gods become fiercer. The Roman gods were more predatory than the goddesses of the Greeks. The founders were fed on wolf's milk in infancy. "Wild" associated with food still commands a premium price.

A division arises between a warrior class and a peaceful residue which remains in the domestic base. The fighting, the training, the production of weapons and the totems of them, the leopard skin leotard & co, becomes the employment of the able-bodied men and the diligence of everyday work falls, having no one else to fall to, the women and the infirm. To be crude about it for the sake of brevity, the feminine becomes ceremonially unclean.

A distinction arises from which religion develops and also the taboo on the infirm, women and women's work and which polarises due to the apprehension of the archaic animismistic barbarian that the taboo is infectious. "Her indoors" is a common English colloquialism for a wife and such considerations are still active politically in those who cannot contemplate a woman president without the veins on their temples pulsing furiously.

It gets very complicated so I had better cease at that point although I will say that an analysis of farmerman's prose belies his claim to the PC agenda and makes his accusations that I am the misogynist completely ridiculous and any ladies who are taken in by his projections would do well to engage their minds with a better sort of literature than hithertofore.

One could argue, from evolutionary science, that the attack on religion which is the powerhouse of this thread for reasons I have often given, is a subversion of predatory activity and exploit which are, of course, the fundamental aspects of "business". And thus an attack on our way of life.

"Attack on your way of life?" ROFL

spendi, Show us one attack from this thread "on your way of life?" The topic of this thread is "Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution." It is the people who have been brain-washed by their religions that try to attack evolution without one iota of evidence.

If you can get beyond what you were taught in your church, and look with an open mind, you'll learn that there are unquestionable evidence in support of evolution. I'm sure you have heard of Charles Darwin. He didn't get everything right, but his main thesis concerning evolution was spot on.

There is no way for you to refute that.

You're not arguing with your religious sister on here ci.

That has nothing to do with this thread.

It has. You don't listen to what your sister says and you didn't read my post. You just gob off without reference to what either of us say.

What my sister says is that she prays for me. What has that to do with evolution?

Yeap, months ago it was clear that your only problem with teaching evolution was that it could disrupt your place in line for the bounties of the current social order. The only problem with that is your hypocrisy of denying it while proclaiming concern about the rabble who might get confused about it undermining their world-view.

Let's get one thing clear; teaching scientific theory does not attack religion. It attacks those who use religion unwisely.

So creationism is science because you think women are unclean?

One could also argue that too much time in the pub has deprived you of working brain cells.

Neither argument holds much weight when it comes to arguing that creationism is science.

I don't think it would do us much good if everybody is a scientist. Least of all the scientists.



It does on this thread.



I can't answer for that just as I can't answer for anybody who uses a chainsaw unwisely.

I think the opposition to teaching evolution is based on the idea that it is an attack on our way of life. I can't see a reason for the length and strength of the debate otherwise.

That is unfair. I said no such thing. And I think no such thing.

So your ramblings had nothing to do with creationism as science then.

Here's an interesting article about evolution:

Well--tool use is obviously a very important aspect of the evolution of species.