• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion 'Intelligent design' teaching ban in the US

Pachipro said:
body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed);
Are you sure? You've not seen me with my shirt off. My nickname is chewie, hence the wookie thing under my username

but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48!
"This last fact is the clincher. You can?ft lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly ?gparent?h species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something ?gspecial?h happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The ?gmissing?h chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it ?gmiraculous?h— technique.
Actually you'll find the older a species in evolutionary terms the more chromosones it has.

I used to read a lot of alien intervention and hollow earth theories when I was 14/15. At one time I was really into it. Over the years I have decided to edge towards the evolutionary side of the argument. One of the reasons is; Why do this?
 
Pachipro said:
"This last fact is the clincher. You can?ft lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly ?gparent?h species and somehow end up better.

I'll say it again - chimps are not our parent species and nor does the theory or evolution assert that they are.

This guy is just making things up to fit this absurd theory! He uses the distraction technique of blending true facts, theories and false assertions together to try and obfuscate and stop people realising how inane his theory is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

Claim CB141:
DNA and chromosome counts differ widely between different organisms. This dissimilarity contradicts the similarity we expect from common descent. Chromosome counts should be either the same because the different forms of life descended from a common ancestor (Pathlights n.d.), or more complex as organisms get more complex (Thompson and Butt 2001). Neither is the case. For example, humans have 46 chromosomes, some ferns have 512, and some gulls have 12.

Response

Chromosome counts are poor indications of similarity; they can vary widely within a single genus or even a single species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (Lewis 1993). Chromosome counts in the house mouse species (Mus domesticus) range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman et al. 1994).

Chromosomes can split or join with little effect on the genes themselves. One human chromosome, for example, is very similar to two chimpanzee chromosomes laid end to end; it likely formed from the joining of two chromosomes (Yunis and Prakash 1982). Because the genes can still align, a change in chromosome number does not prevent reproduction. Chromosome counts can also change through polyploidy, where the entire genome is
duplicated. Polyploidy, in fact, is a common mechanism of speciation in plants.

References:

1. Lewis, Harlan, 1993. "Clarkia", In: The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, J. C. Hickman, ed., Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 786-793.
2. Nachman, M. W., S. N. Boyer, J. B. Searle and C. F. Aquadro, 1994. Mitochondrial DNA variation and the evolution of Robertsonian chromosomal races of house mice, Mus domesticus. Genetics 136(3): 1105-1120.
3. Yunis, Jorge, and Om Prakash, 1982. The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science 215: 1525-1530. See http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.bk1.html for Fig. 2a: Human and chimpanzee chromosomes 1-4.

Pachipro - keep em coming and we'll keep knocking them down.
 
Pachipro said:
but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48! "This last fact is the clincher. You can?ft lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly ?gparent?h species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something ?gspecial?h happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The ?gmissing?h chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it ?gmiraculous?h— technique.
This again shows just how little Lloyd Pye understands about genetics. As Mycernius has pointed out, the number of chromosomes of a eukaryote is related to evolutionary age, not to how complicated an organism is. Humans can have 47 chromosomes (people with Down's syndrome have an extra copy of chromosome 21, and there are a number of conditions involving an extra sex chromosome). Some ferns, which are among the oldest species on Earth, have over 1200 chromosomes! Consider the fact that hares have the same number as humans, and tobacco has the same number as apes, and you can see that the number of chromosomes says less than nothing about how complicated a species is, or how closely related they are.

Edit: Sorry Gaijin06, I was typing at the same time!
 
Thanks for your replies as you have really made me do some heavy reading. However, I still am not swayed by the pointing out of imperfections in Mr. Pye's essay. I still feel that the basis of his essay, in that we were "Intelligently Designed" by an alien race is still valid as no one has yet addressed the subject of the ancient Sumerian texts or that practically all civilizations on earth have "beings from the skys" mentioned in their "legends and so-called myths" as well as legends of the deluge.

However, I will still respect your arguments, read the links you have posted, and still search for the truth. If it turns out that, based on evidence and fact that I am wrong in my beliefs, then I will concede that I am mistaken. As of yet, no one has made that argument or broached that subject yet other than piecemealing flaws in Mr. Pyes essay. Let's get to the gist of the thread: Did we evolve from primates; were we created out of the clay of the earth by a jelous, revengeful god; or were we intelligently designed by a race of advanced humans?

sabro said:
Because aliens have a sense of humor few can understand.
sabro-san I love your sense of humor, but more-so I respect your beliefs.
Mycernius said:
Pachipro said:
body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed);
Are you sure? You've not seen me with my shirt off. My nickname is chewie, hence the wookie thing under my username
Now I will Quote from the man himself, Mr. Darwin from his "Descent of Man -THE EVIDENCE OF THE DESCENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM."
Charles Darwin said:
Man differs conspicuously from all the other primates in being almost naked. But a few short straggling hairs are found over the greater part of the body in the man, and fine down on that of a woman. The different races differ much in hairiness; and in the individuals of the same race the hairs are highly variable, not only in abundance, but likewise in position: thus in some Europeans the shoulders are quite naked, whilst in others they bear thick tufts of hair.* There can be little doubt that the hairs thus scattered over the body are the rudiments of the uniform hairy coat of the lower animals. This view is rendered all the more probable, as it is known that fine, short, and pale-coloured hairs on the limbs and other parts of the body, occasionally become developed into "thickset, long, and rather coarse dark hairs," when abnormally nourished near old-standing inflamed surfaces.*
(2)
* Eschricht, "Uber die Richtung der Haare am menschlichen Korper," Muller's Archiv fur Anat. und Phys., 1837, s. 47. I shall often have to refer to this very curious paper. *(2) Paget, Lectures on Surgical Pathology, 1853, vol. i., p. 71.

Gaijin 06 said:
I'll say it again - chimps are not our parent species and nor does the theory or evolution assert that they are.

This guy is just making things up to fit this absurd theory! He uses the distraction technique of blending true facts, theories and false assertions together to try and obfuscate and stop people realising how inane his theory is.

definition:
quadrumana

\Quad*ru"ma*na\, n. pl. [NL. See Quadrumane.] (Zo["o]l.) A division of the Primates comprising the apes and monkeys; -- so called because the hind foot is usually prehensile, and the great toe opposable somewhat like a thumb. Formerly the Quadrumana were considered an order distinct from the Bimana, which last included man alone.

I further quote from Mr. Darwin:

Charles Darwin said:
Many muscles are occasionally developed in man, which are proper to the Quadrumana or other mammals.

Mr. J. Wood, in his valuable series of papers,* has minutely described a vast number of muscular variations in man, which resemble normal structures in the lower animals. The muscles which closely resemble those regularly present in our nearest allies, the Quadrumans, are too numerous to be here even specified. In a single male subject, having a strong bodily frame, and well-formed skull, no less than seven muscular variations were observed, all of which plainly represented muscles proper to various kinds of apes.

* These papers deserve careful study by any one who desires to learn how frequently our muscles vary, and in varying come to resemble those of the Quadrumana. The following references relate to the few points touched on in my text: Proc. Royal Soc., vol. xiv., 1865, pp. 379-384; vol. xv., 1866, pp. 241, 242; vol. xv., 1867, p. 544; vol. xvi., 1868, p. 524. I may here add that Dr. Murie and Mr. St. George Mivart have shewn in their Memoir on the Lemuroidea (Transactions, Zoological Society, vol. vii., 1869, p. 96), how extraordinarily variable some of the muscles are in these animals, the lowest members of the primates. Gradations, also, in the muscles leading to structures found in animals still lower in the scale, are numerous in the Lemuroidea. *(2) See also Prof. Macalister in Proceedings, Royal Irish Academy, vol. x., 1868, p. 124. *(3) Mr. Champneys in Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, Nov., 1871, p. 178. *(4) Ibid., May, 1872, p. 421. *(5) Prof. Macalister (ibid., p. 121) has tabulated his observations, and finds that muscular abnormalities are most frequent in the fore-arms, secondly, in the face, thirdly, in the foot, &c. *(6) The Rev. Dr. Haughton, after giving (Proc. R. Irish Academy, June 27, 1864, p. 715) a remarkable case of variation in the human flexor pollicis longus, adds, "This remarkable example shows that man may sometimes possess the arrangement of tendons of thumb and fingers characteristic of the macaque; but whether such a case should be regarded as a macaque passing upwards into a man, or a man passing downwards into a macaque, or as a congenital freak of nature, I cannot undertake to say." It is satisfactory to hear so capable an anatomist, and so embittered an opponent of evolutionism, admitting even the possibility of either of his first propositions. Prof. Macalister has also described (Proceedings Royal Irish Academy, vol. x., 1864, p. 138) variations in the flexor pollicis longus, remarkable from their relations to the same muscle in the Quadrumana.

That this unknown factor is reversion to a former state of existence may be admitted as in the highest degree probable.* It is quite incredible that a man should through mere accident abnormally resemble certain apes in no less than seven of his muscles, if there had been no genetic connection between them. On the other hand, if man is descended from some ape-like creature, no valid reason can be assigned why certain muscles should not suddenly reappear after an interval of many thousand generations, in the same manner as with horses, asses, and mules, dark-coloured stripes suddenly reappear on the legs, and shoulders, after an interval of hundreds, or more probably of thousands of generations.

* Since the first edition of this book appeared, Mr. Wood has published another memoir in the Philosophical Transactions, 1870, p. 83, on the varieties of the muscles of the human neck, shoulder, and chest. He here shows how extremely variable these muscles are, and how often and how closely the variations resemble the normal muscles of the lower animals. He sums up by remarking, "It will be enough for my purpose if I have succeeded in shewing the more important forms which, when occurring as varieties in the human subject, tend to exhibit in a sufficiently marked manner what may be considered as proofs and examples of the Darwinian principle of reversion, or law of inheritance, in this department of anatomical science."

Gaijin 06 said:
Pachipro - keep em coming and we'll keep knocking them down.
Please have at it as I am searching for the truth and if I am misled I will say so and concede. My ego is not very big. My desire to learn the truth and look beyond the veil of false science and religion is bigger.

Do the above writings of Mr. Darwin not say we are descended from a primate or am I misreading what he, in his own words, has written? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting his writings as this is what I am interpreting.

More from Mr. Darwin to follow.
 
I believe our current hair patterns have something to do with heat patterns and folicle reaction to hormones? I don't know, but why when you get older does hair stop growing on your head and start growing on your ears and back?
 
So I was posting on "Christ in Japan" and someone pointed me to this Forum. My first statement will be this: Evolution is a Theory which by definition is:" a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena." Now note that definition was taken straight from Webster I did'nt pull that from some unknown source. Notice it says "a concept that is not yet verified". Now this is taken from a Thesaurus, these are the synonyms for the word "Theory": approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot, speculation, stab, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding. I would also like to point out that the antonyms for "Theory" are: fact, proof, and reality. So the "Theory of Evolution" is just that. A theory, which in a thesaurus is categorized as a "belief". Evolution listed in Webster's is: "The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors." So if Evolution is indeed a theory then how can people go around saying that it is proven fact? If it were true would it not be called "The law of Evolution"? Because the law of Gravity is true. It has been proven. Evolution has not. My next statement is that if Evolution is so true then how come we have not evolved any further from our Human state? And I don't mean Adaptation I mean Evolution. Thirdly I'd like to take a swing at the big bang theory. When in history has an explosion ever caused a positive result? Any type of explosion? If I go set off a nuclear bomb, nothing good will come from that. And the idea that over time substances would come together and form things is even more absurd. If I take some wood and metal and set them in a room for 400 years and no one touches them. Over time the molecules in both of them are not going to go "Hey let's get together and make a chair...Yeah that sounds like a great idea". That's ridiculous. Honestly it takes more thought and even more faith to believe in Evolution then it does to believe in Intelligent Design of Any Sort. If I've outraged or offended anyone in this post I apologize, this is just my outlook on the whole debate.
 
Jcandres, when discussing a scientific theory it's obvious that we should use the scientific sense of the word, not the layman's definition.
I'll just give you some sites, in case you're actually interested in learning:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

By the way, gravity is a theory too, and it hasn't been "proven" in any way - there's no such thing in science.

Jcandres said:
And I don't mean Adaptation I mean Evolution.
This statement just goes to show how much you have no idea what evolution means. Why try to attack something you obviously don't understand at all?
 
I am a born again, evangelical, bible believing Christian and I do believe in intelligent design. (I would like all of you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, but that's not what this thread is about either.) I also understand what a scientific theory is. This thread is about what should be taught in schools, not what one person believes.

As a high school assistant principal, the only theories that should be taught in science are scientific theories. No gods, no aliens, no robots from the future. Keep it simple and let science teachers teach science.
 
Pachipro said:
Thanks for your replies as you have really made me do some heavy reading. However, I still am not swayed by the pointing out of imperfections in Mr. Pye's essay. I still feel that the basis of his essay, in that we were "Intelligently Designed" by an alien race is still valid as no one has yet addressed the subject of the ancient Sumerian texts or that practically all civilizations on earth have "beings from the skys" mentioned in their "legends and so-called myths" as well as legends of the deluge.

.....


Please have at it as I am searching for the truth and if I am misled I will say so and concede. My ego is not very big. My desire to learn the truth and look beyond the veil of false science and religion is bigger.

Do the above writings of Mr. Darwin not say we are descended from a primate or am I misreading what he, in his own words, has written? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting his writings as this is what I am interpreting.

More from Mr. Darwin to follow.

Maybe nobody has refuted the ancient Sumerian beliefs because nobody can take them seriously? We have lot a lot about the world in the past 500 years, yet alone the last 6000.

Beings from the sky? Sure, could well be the case.

Abiogenesis having something to do with aliens? Certainly possible.

Humans and primates evolved from a common ancestor? Indisputable.
 
Jcandres said:
So I was posting on "Christ in Japan" and someone pointed me to this Forum. My first statement will be this: Evolution is a Theory which by definition is:" a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Claim CA201:
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
Source:
State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency. http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int.rtf
Response:

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
 
Pachipro said:
I still feel that the basis of his essay, in that we were "Intelligently Designed" by an alien race is still valid as no one has yet addressed the subject of the ancient Sumerian texts or that practically all civilizations on earth have "beings from the skys" mentioned in their "legends and so-called myths" as well as legends of the deluge.

I am not sure exactly what we are meant to be refuting?

Is it this?

Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago, through the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, everyone accepted that some form of heavenly beings hadcreated all of life and, as a crowning achievement, topped it off with humans. Now, consider that for a moment. Today the CEO of a medium-sized corporation can verbally issue an instruction to be carried out company-wide and have no hope it will reach the lower echelons intact. So the fact that most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story is astonishing in its consistency.

So you are claiming that because a lot of people throughout the ages have thought something then it has to be true?

I presume this should also have held true for the ideas that the Sun and the rest of the universe revolved round the flat Earth, while making sacrifices to the Moon/Sun/Fire/Rain/Sex Gods helped the weather/harvests/fertility/fortunes of these people living on this planet.

All these were common beliefs handed down through civilations.

Please enlighten me if there is something in the Sumerian tablets that I missed.
 
Last edited:
sabro said:
I believe our current hair patterns have something to do with heat patterns and folicle reaction to hormones? I don't know, but why when you get older does hair stop growing on your head and start growing on your ears and back?
Bloody hell, I'll be a silverback by the time I'm 60:D
 
kumo said:
Mutations are caused by copying errors during cell division, by exposure to radiation, viruses, chemicals, etc. Natural selection is caused by environmental pressure and its consequences on reproduction and survival rates. My point is, we can continue this "but what causes x and y" argument ad infinitum, but there will always be a perfectly reasonable explanation without using any "god" or "designer" concept. When we have exhausted all questions and their respective answers, it becomes clear that such concepts as a god or designer are in the best case totally unnecessary, most probably completely false, and most certainly against any scientific evidence.

Kumo, I am deeply scientific in scientific concepts, but I have a whole nother opinion on evolution. I made of a mistake of saying ID probably existed on a physics forum, and people totally attacked me.

In fact, I beileve if ID doesn't exist, religion must exist. Maybe people believe in religion because it makes them feel more comfortable, but honestly, I seriously do *NOT* believe we happened from evolution. There is absoutely no scientific evidence pointing that says ID or religion isn't possible. There is alot of evidence about evolution, but, I can't possibly beileve of how complex we are (Especially our human bodies, Ive studied anatomy for awhile) we just 'happened'.
 
Pachikobro, do you believe in ID, or religion, or evolution? It's hard to see.

Its funny how everyone says each other is WRONG. NO ONE is 'wrong', its just a matter of opinion.
 
GoldCoinLover said:
Kumo, I am deeply scientific in scientific concepts, but I have a whole nother opinion on evolution. I made of a mistake of saying ID probably existed on a physics forum, and people totally attacked me.

Well, you deserved it.

In fact, I beileve if ID doesn't exist, religion must exist.
Sorry, can't follow you reasoning here.
Maybe people believe in religion because it makes them feel more comfortable....
Wishful thinking
Hasty generalization

I seriously do *NOT* believe we happened from evolution. There is absoutely no scientific evidence pointing that says ID or religion isn't possible. There is alot of evidence about evolution, but, I can't possibly beileve of how complex we are (Especially our human bodies, Ive studied anatomy for awhile) we just 'happened'.

Argument from ignorance

Its funny how everyone says each other is WRONG. NO ONE is 'wrong', its just a matter of opinion.

Relativist fallacy
Middle ground fallacy

Five logical fallacies and counting...
 
GoldCoinLover said:
Pachikobro, do you believe in ID, or religion, or evolution? It's hard to see.

Its funny how everyone says each other is WRONG. NO ONE is 'wrong', its just a matter of opinion.

Papachiro believes that Aliens influence our genesis...correct? Which is the point of the thread- you don't (or rather shouldn't) teach dubious non-scientific ideas in public school science classes.
 
GoldCoinLover said:
Its funny how everyone says each other is WRONG. NO ONE is 'wrong', its just a matter of opinion.
If you don't believe in proven scientific facts you are wrong, it's as simple as that.
 
Ok I'm not going to argue because if you think christians are close-minded look over this forum, and re-read just how close-minded every single statemnt in here sounds. And to correct what was stated earlier Gravity is not a theory, it is indeed a law. All I'm saying is try not to think so deep into everything and over analyze ever single detail. There is so much extreme belief in the most absurd information, for evolution to be correct. And when talking about evolution I mean the evolution of man from primate. I'm going to end my post with this and if you want to talk anymore about it send me a message. If you take a beautiful piece of artwork, you cannot say it did not have a artist. I mean to say that overtime some force caused the brush, the paint and the canvas to come together to form a beautiful painting is absurd. The same can go for a new car, to say that there was not some type of intelligent group of people behind it carefuly overlooking each and every aspect of it is ridiculous. Now I know everyone on this forum who is strong on looking at this from a scientific point will say that you can't even compare the two but they all deal with creation, and design. The human eye alone is so complex, To say that the earth and moon were placed so exact to where the Sun would not fry us to death, or be so far away that we would freeze, and say that it was all just by luck? You don't have to be so complex when dealing with this topic. Just look at the simple things. You don't have to believe in God to believe in Intelligent Design, but you should atleast acknowledge the fact that you were created by someone. Anyways I've rambled on enough. I'm done with this debate on here though, if you really want to know more send me a message. Later
 
Back
Top