Free Republic Poll on Evolution

Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

[PatrickHenry]

Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:

Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?

You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.

I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.

Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)

If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.

[tomzz]

I'm not quite sure what to make of those skulls just yet, they appear to be within what you might call a microevolutionary development from modern man and I don't see how they could be descended from neanderthals or anything more primitive than a neanderthal any more than we could. There actually is a reason why hominid remains turn up around the Afar triangle area, but it's a sort of a long story.

I don't doubt that hominids were real, particularly homo erectus and the neanderthal; I simply do not think we're related to any of them, at least not via any process resembling evolution. Moreover, when you go back to Lucy and her kin, I strongly suspect you're talking about monkeys and not apes or hominids.

[jennyp]

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
  
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
Published creationists...
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
Brown, Walt	ape	ape	ape	ape				human	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Luskin, Casey	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human	human	human	human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human
Amateur creationists...
DannyTN	ape	ape	ape		ape	human	human	human	human	human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Elsie	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
taxesareforever	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human
vetsvette	ape					human				human

[Quark2005]

I think A is human and the rest are apes...

[RadioAstronomer]

One will never know what FreedomProtector wears....

pants, shorts, colorful tights, bell bottoms or flannel pajamas; cape or no cape; boots, cross trainers or sandals; boxers or briefs....

Straitjacket?

[Quix]

Cute.

Especially fun, no doubt, for the time challenged.

[Quix]

I LIKE

TO THINK

that all our pontificators hereon are some variation of sane or at least healthily insane. Straight jackets not needed.

Of course, some inanitites, and grossly irrational assumptions can sometimes threaten my preference in thinking on that score.

[FreedomProtector]

No straightjacket : )

[balrog666]

I think A is human ...

And is he posting on this thread?

[FreedomProtector]

Perhaps this chart demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence of skulls is inconclusive.

Perhaps evolutionists presume that they know the cause of circumstantial evidence before examining it.

Thanks for the ping, jennyp!

[andysandmikesmom]

Having read of number of your posts, regarding your belief in the ineffectiveness and complete uselessness of modern medicine, I would say that the same thing would apply to your posts..people can read, and when they do, you may wind up not looking good at all...

I think this would be a great poll FR..lets ask everyone if when they or a member of their family become ill, do they actually go to a medical doctor, actually get a prescription for medical drugs and actually trust that modern medicine will do its job, and retore a person to health?...or do they reject modern medical doctors and modern medical drugs in favor of your method(whatever that is)?...

[jerri]

Freedumb2003, if you have proof where life began then please enlighten us "ignorant and naive" peasants.

[jennyp]

Perhaps this chart demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence of skulls is inconclusive.

Yes, but why would the skulls be inconclusive? Even the professional creationist scholars (who were writing about the whole skeletons, not just the skulls pictured here) can't make up their minds which ones are "just an ape" vs. those that are "just an old/arthritic/outlier human". This only makes sense if these are, indeed, transitional species.

[FreedomProtector]

Of coarse the most outstanding detectives in the world certainly never ever disagree when examining circumstantial evidence at a crime scene.

Of coarse the evolutionist can always determine exactly what the exact animal was when they examine any circumstantial evidence. Thus two independent evolutionists will never disagree on any circumstantial evidence.

I think you may be on to something here.

Thanks for the ping, jennyp.

[freedumb2003]

These are the ones that mount the shrill, crazed, and relentless attacks on a particular individual, in an attempt to get them to post something that will get the victim banned.

LOL!!

FWIIW: The attacks are on the argument or lack thereof usually. I only get "personal" when the poster makes blanket assertions OVER AND OVER that can't be supported or when they demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on the subject yet continue to post incorrect information. And of course if they get personal first.

And some people can't handle a little bit of sarcasm.

[freedumb2003]

Freedumb2003, if you have proof where life began then please enlighten us "ignorant and naive" peasants.

1) TToE per se has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.

2) We have a massive fossil record consisting of millions of artifacts as well as observed evolutionary processes that satisfy the requirements of science.

Your use of the word "proof" in this context makes no sense. Perhaps if you rephrase, I might be able to help.

[js1138]

I thought we were having a pretty good run. It sucks to be caught.

[jerri]

Having read of number of your posts, regarding your belief in the ineffectiveness and complete uselessness of modern medicine..

What? I don't recall anyone on this thread making that statement. Just because some of us don't believe we evolved from some single celled organism doesn't mean we think medicine is ineffective and useless. That is quite an exaggeration.

[jerri]

Your use of the word "proof" in this context makes no sense. Perhaps if you rephrase, I might be able to help.

It makes no sense because you cannot answer the question. Exactly what evolutionary process has been observed that proves we evolved into living thinking beings from non-life.

[tomzz]

A - E are monkeys and apes, F - L are hominids, i.e. a more advanced branch of the same line as chimps and gorillas than anything we have left, and the last two are humans. DNA studies say humans aren't related to the neanderthal and your pictures clearly show that all the others are further from us than the neanderthal was. We're not related to any of them.