Modern chimpanzees are human? That's a new one.
OK, where would you place this little guy, a spider monkey?
Posted on 08/02/2006 9:17:33 AM PDT by JCEccles
Columbia, SC –- After months of debate, today the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee unanimously ratified high school biology standards requiring students to understand why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The South Carolina State Board of Education adopted the standards unanimously last month, and submitted them to the EOC for approval. South Carolina’s new evolution standard does not require teaching the theory of intelligent design.
The biology standard approved requires students to be able to, “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” This falls under the overall biology standard which says that “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.”
“This victory is an important milestone towards improving the quality of science education, by ensuring that students learn the full range of relevant scientific evidence, including the scientific criticisms of evolution,” said Casey Luskin an attorney and public policy analyst with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “South Carolina is the fifth current state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution and this policy helps remedy the problem that most biology textbooks today largely ignore scientific challenges to Darwinism.”
South Carolina State Senator Mike Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, and Terrye Campsen Seckinger, a member of the South Carolina Board of Education, issued a statement applauding the approval of the new high school biology standards: “It is impossible to meet this standard without the discussion of the meaning of critical analysis as it applies to evolutionary science. This is a great improvement over our 2000 standards. Students will now have the opportunity to wholly learn about the theory of evolution. This means that students will have the opportunity to fully discuss all aspects of evolutionary theory instead of limiting discussion to only evidence that might support it.”
There is no dividing line. They are all human skulls.
That's what I got out it.
"But I WAS EMPHATIC! THAT WAS WHAT WAS IMPORTANT! Using CAPITAL LETTERS!"
That is all that matters.
"That's what I got out it."
You got *out it* wrong.
Doesn't need any non-water. The water remembers.
"There is no dividing line. They are all human skulls."
Even the modern chimp?
Modern chimpanzees are human? That's a new one.
OK, where would you place this little guy, a spider monkey?
You realize one of them is a chimp skull, right?
You yourself use all capital letter words frequently for emphasis, and yet you make fun of me for doing it... That's being a real dumbass!
[links]
thanks, you're right it's an odd discussion
I use them sparingly. And I make sure that what I post makes sense, capitals or not.
And I have yet to directly insult anyone on any of these threads. I don't call people "stupid" or "dumbass" or "idiot" or "moron." I do call them "ignorant" (which means lacking information) or "willfully ignorant" (which means avoiding information).
I ask for the same courtesy.
Several of those skulls do not represent any creature for they are yet more composites.
Incorrect.
You look at some of those photos close up, and the pieces do not even fit poorly. And then when you read into it more you find that in many cases not all the pieces came from the same immediate/local area, then add in the margin of error for the dating methods (and I will give that a generous and huge degree of confidence here for the sake of argument say oh 0.00001%) And you still end up with a speculative assertion (some might say wildly speculative) /or guess that 'the skull' is the all so sought out after transitional.
I have looked at a lot of those skulls closeup--as museum quality plastic casts, not just as photographs. The scientists who study them work with the original pieces of fossilized bone.
I think your opinions of which are composites and which are accurate are of little use.
As far as "the all so sought out after transitional" -- most of these skulls show transitional features in one trait or another. Some its dentition, some its cranial size, etc.
Why would you assume there is only one "long sought after" transitional precisely between an ancient common ancestor and modern human? Actually there are a lot of fossils in this space; some traits changing quicker than others, but the progression from ancient common ancestor to modern human can be seen quite well.
It seems that any conclusions made about Ardipithecus ramidus is based on more than just a toe bone.
More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils.
Toe bones from bipedal primates are different than those from quadrupedal primates. They can be differentiated.
That said it appears that the toe bone is not considered to be a definitive data point.
Both quotes from Talk Origins
Adaptationist 'just so' stories are quite helpful when trying to determine the evolutionary path a specific species took and will frequently provide an 'aha' insight to a more solidly backed conclusion. Ideas such as a bipedal 'kadabba' are not considered by scientists as 'fact' and aren't presented that way. The only group that claims these stories are treated as 'fact' are anti-evolutionists.
When an explanation for a fossil find is presented as 'backed by evidence' there is much more than a single bone taken into consideration. There are frequently many more fossils from a number of individuals than just the one in question found among fossils of other organisms including plants. This ecology gives a better story of the history of the fossil than just the bone alone.
Well of course! I'm sure you think every post is a gem. Who thinks otherwise of what they post?
And I have yet to directly insult anyone on any of these threads. I don't call people "stupid" or "dumbass" or "idiot" or "moron." ... I ask for the same courtesy.
You were mocking me openly so save the phony claims of civility and requesting the same.
Sorry if you can't ake a little ribbing. But I didn;t insult you directly nor do I ever do so.
Yes, there is a difference. At a minimum, it is the difference between wit and brutishness.
Really? Well what happened here then?
Prominently displayed in the center of page 59 of the Time article is a tiny fragment of a toe bone. Lemonick and Dorfman wrote: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.”
This doesn't specify what is wrong with determining an upright stance from a single toe bone it just assumes that it isn't possible than appeals to the emotions of the reader.
What criteria were used to determine that the bone was from a bipedal ape and why was it incorrect?
Oh that I have no problem with. It's when you claim to be some choir boy then I have to take issue.
But I didn;t insult you directly nor do I ever do so.
No, you insulted me behind my back and now claim that somehow that was/is "more noble" than to my face. Don't make everyone laugh...
At a minimum, it is the difference between wit and brutishness.
No, at a minimum, it is the difference between being a weasel and ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.