Darwin

[hyperlitegirl819]

Why do schools insist on teach about Darwin and calling his work "science"? Has every scientist over-looked the principle of irreducible complexity? Irreducible Complexity states that some organisms are made up of basic component parts, and the organism could not exist (because it couldn't function) without all of the component parts existing at the same time. Even Darwin said that his theory would not hold up if irreducible complexity was proven.

If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which
could not possible have been formed
by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down. (from On The Origin of Species)

Back in Darwin's time, people didn't have the technology to see what contemporary science has since proven. Living Organisms are irreducibly complex. Humans, for example, are too complex for Darwin's theory to even be considered. We consist of many parts that have to be present for us to live. I would like someone to explain to me why the textbooks and curriculum for highschool biology over-looks this principle among others, which I will be posting soon.[/i]

[Chem]

The article also states that modern humans and neanderthals coexisted, proving that neanderthals are not primitive beings.

I never suggested that Neanderthals were primitive. There is evidence that they had ritual burials and weapons which does not suggest primitive beings.

From the DNA evidence, the two were different though related species.

You claim that one of the links suggested that the two species were in fact subspecies. Here is the quote from that link:

However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.

.

As with previous quotes, your claim is out of context.

Here is a quote from another of the links relating to the DNA evidence and other (more) controversal aspects of Neanderthals:

Purported evidence of aesthetic behaviors and of religious beliefs among Neanderthals remains relatively scant and controversial, leading many experts to question the extent of their linguistic capabilities. Controversy also persists regarding the fate of Neanderthals, with opinion divided between those who argue that they became extinct and were replaced by modern H. sapiens and those who argue that their anatomical distinctions were diluted through gene flow (see genetics) with other H. sapiens. Tests conducted on surviving Neanderthal DNA have shown little similarity to the DNA of modern humans.

You will notice that unlike YECs etc. scientists are not adverse to suggesting that there is problems in assessing the nature of the evidence that they have.

homo heidelbergensis was basically the same as archaic homo sapien. and there are many similarities between the h. heidelbergensis fossils, and modern day native australians. they both have a potruding brow line for example, they both have sloped foreheads, and they both have slightly smaller cranial capacities.

Would I be facetious here if I suggested that what you are looking at here is one of those (in)famous intermediate forms?

homo heidelbergensis was basically the same as archaic homo sapien. and there are many similarities between the h. heidelbergensis fossils, and modern day native australians. they both have a potruding brow line for example, they both have sloped foreheads, and they both have slightly smaller cranial capacities.

And your evidence for this is? I could be very unkind with regards to the suggestion in the above quote but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt.

The article also states that modern humans and neanderthals coexisted, proving that neanderthals are not primitive beings.

I think you are missing the point about what is primative and what is not. What we are talking about here is archaic rather than primitive. Coexistence of similar species does not have any bearing on what is primitive and what is not. People in the 1st world would consider Hunter/Gatherers as more primitive but this is a cultural point of view rather than anything else.

[otseng]

I honestly don't recall asking you to be a jackass.

Per the rules, attacks of any sort on another poster are not allowed. Please avoid all comments (particularly negative ones) about other posters.

[Dilettante]

Instead of commenting on my use of terms, why didn't you just answer the question? If you didn't understand it, simply say so.

I honestly don't recall asking you to be a jackass.

foshizzle, I must ask you to refrain from making incendiary remarks. Personal attacks are against the rules. Let's keep this at the level of civility, please.

[foshizzle]

I apologize, it was a response to posts directed at me.
I will keep it 'in the bag' next time, so to speak.