Is evolution a controversial science?

[McCulloch]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 60 by JP Cusick]

Look, you've deflected every challenge to define evolution, avoided any explanation of the actual theory, and continued to peddle your nonsense.

Now you get to deal with people who actually understand evolution, and your only argument is shredded enough times that your only way to stay in the discussion is by pretending your argument is impossible to defeat. Nevermind that your debate ethic is horrid and dishonest, I'll address the one lynch pin you have.

Modern humans with black skin are just as evolved as modern humans with white skin. You know why? BECAUSE THEY BOTH DESCENDED FROM THE SAME ANCESTORS, WHICH LIVED IN THE PAST. Any species that exists today is "just as evolved" as any other because they exist in the present. Even if they carry some trivial morphological trait, that doesn't mean jack about some idiotic idea about which supgroup is superior. It just means THAT TRAIT CONTINUES TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THAT POPULATION DUE TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. I HAVE to put this in all caps because I'm not letting you skim past this. I will make you acknowledge the flaw in your argument, and that flaw is that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. A black person today is not the same as a pre-human ancestor millions of years ago. You are lumping in a group of people with a group of non-human ancestors on the grounds of some misguided notion that to be "more evolved", a population has to leave a location their ancestors lived in, and have to develop distinct characteristics, otherwise they for some reason stay "un-evolved". But that. Is. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. Any population that exists today is, by definition, more evolved because their individual members continue to introduce novel traits to the population that are selected for by the environment, and subsequently distinguish the group from their ancestors, which exist as a DISTINCT group independent from their descendants. White humans, black humans, etc, all share ancestors with (probably dark-skinned) pre-modern characteristics. That does not mean any group of humans has stopped evolving, that does not mean any group of humans is more or less evolved. Any group that remains in the location the ancestors lived will probably encounter environmental conditions that continue to select for similar characteristics, but THAT IS STILL EVOLUTION IN ACTION, MODIFYING THE POPULATION. White skin is JUST A RESPONSE TO ALTERED WEATHER CONDITIONS.

Your argument is dead on arrival. If you understood evolutionary theory, you would know better than to peddle this dishonest, racist garbage. Anyone who understands evolution understands what I wrote, understands there are no modern humans who are more or less evolved, and know that evolutionary arguments cannot justify racism, so it cannot appropriately be used in the "racist tray".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 60 by JP Cusick]

The fact that humanity first began in darkest Africa as black people directly evolved from animal like humans, and then as humans evolved further they traveled north and then west into Europe where they became the higher evolved white race.

That is simple basic evolution, and it implies and promotes the racist ideal of white superiority.

NO! ... your mistake in the above comment is "they became the higher evolved white race." This is not "simple, basic evolution" It is your phrasing of your interpretation to support your claim that Darwinian evolution implies that white skin is superior, or more 'highly evolved." Evolution does not imply or promote such a position. Here is a more correct statement:

Homo sapians (modern humans) first appeared in Africa and are believed to have had dark skin. They evolved from earlier genus homo species who themselves evolved from a great ape ancestor. Eventually, human populations migrated from Africa to higher latitudes and as a result of lower UV levels, natural selection favored lower melanin levels in the skin, resulting in lighter colored skin and higher natural vitamin D production. Wikipedia has a far more detailed explanation of skin color in humans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

It is only you who are connecting light skin color to evolution and racism. Evolution does say that humans evolved from the great apes, and this cannot be disputed anymore. It is a fact. Light skin is just a minor evolutionary adaptation with no direct relationship to intelligence, or "superiority" in any way. Socio-economic realities may result in certain populations having better access to food, education, etc. and result in differences between people of different skin colors. But "simple basic evolution" as you put it does not make any connection whatsoever between skin color alone and the superiority of any particular "race" (which is in outdated term as well).

Link QUOTE = " Previous studies have found that genetic differences in human populations can be explained by distance from Africa. " ~ National Geographic

What? This has nothing to do with relating evolution and African human origins to superiority or "higher evolved" status of light skinned humans. It is a simple summary of the known facts about human origins and migration. The fact that lighter skin may have developed in higher latitude populations has nothing to do with how they got there in the first place, but obviously they had to get there at some point for the skin color adaptation to happen.

Or are you arguing that homo sapiens did not originate in Africa, and evolve into that species from earlier homo species, and back to a common ancestor we share with chimpanzees and bonobos? This is simple basic evolution, and if you don't belive that then you are just ignoring the last 150 years of science. But this has nothing to do with skin color and in no way suggests that lighter skinned humans are superior to darker skinned humans. Simple basic evolution makes no such claims ... that is purely your take on it that does not match reality.

In religion all people are equal (evolving equally), and God our Father is evolving all of humanity into the children of God.

Tell that to ISIS, who do everything they do in the name of religion.

[Neatras]

You know what? I have an hour, why don't I have more fun with this? I'm not gonna let you just rehash all your old arguments, Cusick. I'm not done with you.

The elephant in the room has been addressed, and it's the idiotic notion on Cusick's part that some races of human are "higher evolved" than others. This flagrant strawman is in no small part due to Cusick's own misconception about race, but that's for later. For now, let's tear into the term "higher evolved" as if our species can somehow go through predictable, repeatable lines of development like Pokemon. Imagine that, Cusick using an inappropriate misconception of evolution.

"Higher evolved" does not mean the most intelligent, the fastest, the smartest, or the most distinct organism or group compared to their ancestor. This is an insertion of judgmental criteria based on non-evolutionary metrics. Is a penguin more evolved than a pigeon? Is an alligator more evolved than a crocodile? Nobody would say yes, but because of anthropocentric egoism, Cusick acts like comparisons between groups of humans can suddenly incorporate the phrase "higher evolved". The only metric that causes the phrase to make ANY SENSE is time. Time since the first ancestor up until the last generation of a population. If a species is alive, it is subject to evolutionary pressures and is therefore evolving. A group that is dead is not evolving, therefore any amount of time passing would cause any groups to still be alive to be (very naively) called more evolved, because their lineage has had more time for novel traits to appear, and new allele frequencies to fill the population. Any species that exists today is equally evolved compared to any other species alive today. They have had an equal amount of time for their ancestry to develop and adapt to the environment. Evolution has operated on their ancestors equally.

The notion that something has only evolved if it has manifested a distinct physical change is a myth. Traits which are useful can remain, and the continued selective pressure promoting the continued use and popularity of that trait will exist all the same, just like any force driving evolution. What's more, non-surface level changes can happen constantly and without our awareness. In just a few generations, wolves can develop radically altered immune systems to deal with a disease problem.

Now onto Cusick's underlying racism. He asserts that evolution asserts that somehow, because whites are an "off-shoot" from the original African ancestors, that makes white people more evolved. But people with black skin are just as much of an off-shoot. Cusick, black people are not a monolith identical to our ancestors. They are distinct groups, and since modern day people with black skin exist, that makes them more evolved than their ancestors. They are distinct groups. This is something evolutionary theory already acknowledges. Which means you are MISREPRESENTING THE THEORY. As we have all been saying for as long as you have been here. But you refuse to accept your lack of understanding, and so we continue to point this out.

Let me cut off your next mindless repeat. "But Neatras, a bunch of racists said-" I DON'T CARE WHAT RACISTS THINK. I will just as easily crush their arguments as I crush yours, because both they and you fail to address the theory correctly. If racists said that whites are superior because they read it in the stars, you wouldn't call astronomy racist. You would say that they are inappropriately using science to push their agenda, while maligning and strawmanning the actual field of science. A racist uses bad arguments, and that's why both I and others rebuke them and beat their arguments. Because misusing science is something we can easily correct.

If you talked to actual biologists, you would know this. If you talked to anyone except those in your echo chamber, only to come on here and preach at us while avoiding our refutations of your weak arguments, you would not be in this position.

[JP Cusick]

... blah ... blah ... blah ...

I am not preaching evolution as racism - I am the one (1) denouncing the racism of evolution.

A very simple reality easy to see here - and yet others pretend to miss that reality. Duh.

............................

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 64 by JP Cusick]

I am the one (1) denouncing the racism of evolution.

You've done it yet again ... claiming that evolution supports racism. But you can't denounce something that does not exist. If you'd spend just a small amount of time to understand the ABCs of evolution you'd see that you are wrong. But this is obviously a lost cause. Maybe you should try your faulty line of reasoning somewhere besides the "Science and Religion" section. I've yet to see a single theist chiming in to support your view in this thread.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

... blah ... blah ... blah ...

I am not preaching evolution as racism - I am the one (1) denouncing the racism of evolution.

A very simple reality easy to see here - and yet others pretend to miss that reality. Duh.

............................

Evolution is not racism. You only see evolution as racism because you have concluded that whites appear to be more highly evolved than other races. The basis for concluding this is that the western nations have a history over the last few centuries of more advanced scientific development. The very science you do not understand, and disparage. You stand as a contradiction to the very thing you somehow believe.

Being a great scientist does not require being white, you see.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 64 by JP Cusick]

You have not addressed any of my arguments. This demonstrates a lack of good debate ethic. Am I to assume your one liner is an admission you have nothing to back up your argument? If so, I'm comfortable going on about how you're wrong about what evolutionary theory states. You've made enough blunders this thread to write books.

Most folks who break down into one liners (and this is against the rules, you're supposed to debate, not pretend we aren't here) eventually move on from this forum because they lack the ability to debate effectively when their very limited ammunition is used up. Critical thinking requires the ability to listen to the opponent's argument and form an effective counter-argument by addressing their points, but you haven't done that even once.

[JP Cusick]

You have not addressed any of my arguments.

I do not like to play along with senseless arguing.

I made my point in lots of details along with reference links and picture and details as seen in this comment of mine = Post #58

So I am not going to argue with others who have no merit nor justification.

I stand by what I wrote as all of my own comments are accurate and mine are all true.

If there comes any mature or realistic discussion comments in the future then I will jump back in.

Other people making endless comments with their pretentious explanations about evolution is just not worthy of my reply.

The thread title is about the controversy and not about the coverup.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 68 by JP Cusick]

Other people making endless comments with their pretentious explanations about evolution is just not worthy of my reply.

pre·ten·tious
prəˈten(t)SHəs/
adjective

Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

Since you presumably do not know any of us personally, or have any knowledge of our educational levels, actual fields of expertise, etc., it is awfully presumptuous of you to imply that none of us are mature or realistic, and are only pretending to know something about evolution (the real theory, not your imagined version).

I stand by what I wrote as all of my own comments are accurate and mine are all true.

Well that does it then. No room for debate when you simply proclaim that all of your comments are accurate and true (despite the fact that most/all of them have been shot down by us pretenders using widely available information that has passed extensive scientific scrutiny).

[alexxcJRO]

... blah ... blah ... blah ...

I am not preaching evolution as racism - I am the one (1) denouncing the racism of evolution.

A very simple reality easy to see here - and yet others pretend to miss that reality. Duh.

............................

There is no racism of evolution.
Quit propagating this nonsense and stop with the straw man. Your embarrassing yourself. )

The Nazis, as everyone knows, justified the death camps on the grounds that Jews and Gypsies were genetically inferior based only on skin color.
We know this is wrong today.

Cavalli-Sforza has probably spent more time trying to classify human groups by genetic analysis than anyone else. In his massive book The History and Geography of Human Genes, he groups people into geographic and evolutionary clusters--but, he writes, ''At no level can clusters be identified with races.'' Indeed, ''minor changes in the genes or methods used shift some populations from one cluster to the other.''

''White people'' do not even share a common genetic heritage; instead, they come from different lineages that migrated from Africa and Asia. A white man from a specific part of the world could be closer in his DNA to an African than to another white people from another specific place of the world. But all living humans go back to a common ancestor in Africa.

Here free for download in pdf format:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Human_Gene

C: There is no base for one to consider that evolution promotes racism for ''at no level can evolutionary clusters� be identified with races. Therefore is no need for “ denouncing the racism of evolution� for it does not exists.

So I am not going to argue with others who have no merit nor justification.

I stand by what I wrote as all of my own comments are accurate and mine are all true.

If there comes any mature or realistic discussion comments in the future then I will jump back in.

Other people making endless comments with their pretentious explanations about evolution is just not worthy of my reply.

The thread title is about the controversy and not about the coverup.

Irrelevant rambling and illogical nonsense.
Saying something does not make it true. You have to prove it.
Plus avoiding the arguments and add hominems does not really help your case but the contrary they make you look really bad.
Please address the arguments.

The thread title is about the controversy and not about the coverup.

Q: What cover-up?!!! Paranoid again?!!!