An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.
Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html
Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA
Moderator: Moderators
Post #71
jcrawford wrote: Sapiens and Neandertals aren't species like horses and donkeys, Grumpy. They are human beings.
Sorry for the lengthy quote here, but I've checked out the background to the above article and I find it rather more compelling than your bald assertion. What evidence do you have to refute the above conclusion?California Academy of Sciences wrote:Two years ago a team led by Svante Pääbo, a former Allan Wilson student now at the University of Munich, succeeded in getting mitochondrial DNA from a small piece of an arm bone of the First Neandertal, the original specimen that exploded out of Feldhofer Cave in 1856. It was only fitting that the skeleton that raised so many questions should finally provide some of the answers.
The Munich molecular sleuths used the most modern techniques, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and bacterial cloning, to amplify DNA fragments so that these copies could then be analyzed and sequenced. They were able to reconstruct a 378-base-pair sequence, and match it with the corresponding sequence from living people. They made comparisons with almost a thousand individuals from around the world. They particularly wanted to see if Neandertal DNA shows any resemblance to that of Europeans. If so, this would support the Neandertals-as-ancestors theory. Neandertals have been found in Africa or East Asia.
To fend off potential criticism that their results might be incorrect or biased, the Munich group provided some Neandertal bone to Mark Stoneking, another former Wilson student, at Pennsylvania State University, where he and his team made an independent analysis.
Results from the two laboratories were in complete accord. The 378-base-pair Neandertal sequence differed on average from modern human DNA in 27 places. The modern human sequences differed from each other in only eight places. Moreover, the Neandertal DNA was no more similar to that of Europeans than it was to any other geographical group.
These results support only one of the three theories about Neandertals. They indicate that Neandertals were a completely separate species from Homo sapiens, four times as different from us genetically as Africans, Asians, Europeans, and Australian aborigines are from each other. The Neandertal DNA indicates that the two species, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, had a common ancestor in Africa about 600,000 years ago. There is no DNA evidence of any interbreeding between the two species. Therefore, when the Neandertals went extinct about 30,000 years ago, their genes went extinct, too.
Post #72
jcrawford
Grumpy
PS I'm still waiting for your evidence which doesn't agree with mine. Just make sure it passes the scientific method or don't waste my time.
You amaze me with your ability to always be wrong. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a "name" we give to modern humans(us). "Names" indicate specific things,ideas or organizisms so we can know specifically what we are referencing. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalus is another "name" which indicates another species of modern human, not super nor sub-human, just "not us". Neaderthalus, despite the CSBS racism, was not another "race" of modern human, they were an entirely different species. We both had a common ancestor some 600,000 years ago, but little or no interbreeding after that. Those are the facts we have found so far, you should get used to dealing with reality.Grumpy wrote:
There is only one branch of Homo Sapiens which had two variants, Sapiens and Neanderthalus, both were human, only one survives today, Sapiens.
jcrawford wrote:
Homo sapiens is just a meaningless label biologists use to call Human beings, Grumpy, and Neanderthals were just human beings who lived during the ice age.
Wrong again,mes amie! It shows a great deal of racism to call any of our cousins or forefathers "sub-human". It indicates a false idea that we, Sapiens Sapiens, are in any way "over" or "above" or "better than" any other ape. We are different but each creature in the ape family, living or dead, deserves your respect,not your discrimination against them. It seems your problem stems from the idea that the "name" human means not-ape, it does not. As different as we are from say, chimpanzees, our DNA tells us there is only about 3% difference. In evolutionary terms that's very closely related. It is racist to consider them sub us.Quote:
Sub-human is a racist concept on your part, I wish you would stop showing such prejudice against creatures which were just "not us".
If creatures are not human, Grumpy, it's no more racist to call them sub-human than it is to call them non-human.
We KNOW that our scientific ideas are, in the scientific world, superior to creationist myths. That is because our ideas are supported by real scientific evidence, which has been tested by the scientific method, and explain the natural world much better than ANY religion's creation mythology, not just yours. In the theological world your religion may be superior to all other ideas about those questions, science doesn't work with supernatural questions or philisophical concepts very well if at all.Quote:
To measure our ancestors and cousins(including apes) as being "less" than us shows a racist "superiority of humans" attitude that is not justified by the scientific evidence.
That's what neo-Darwinists do though, Grumpy. they think their scientific attitudes are superior to creationists.
Again wrong, at least you're consistent. S and N are species just like every other animal is a species. Again you display the racist attitude that humans are in some way superior to any other animal. You want special treatment for humans and look down your nose at all the other apes and ordinary animals. You want the differences between humans and apes to be black(completely human) and white(completely ape) when, in reality, there are just shades of gray as we go back in time toward our common ancestors with the other Great Apes. Neanderthal was a "brother" species, neither better nor worse than us, just different. The other great apes are our "cousins", further removed but still family. All are worthy of our respect because they have all evolved to fit their environment and will continue to change to better fit in the future(if man allows a future).Quote:
Sapiens and Neanderthalus were two very simular species just like the horse and donkey are very simular but divergent species.
Sapiens and Neandertals aren't species like horses and donkeys, Grumpy. They are human beings.
Human species are observable by genetics and signifigant change in skeletal features, especially skulls. Race is a social construct(created by racists long before evolution was a concept) based on skin color which is not shown in the genetic evidence. The differences in the "races" is insignifigant in evolutionary terms and falls within the limits of variability within species and is therefore irrelivant to science. Why you are so hung up on the concept is unhealthy and disturbing. You should work on ridding yourself of this erronious idea of human superiority, we're all just animals living and evolving together on Earth.Quote:
"Race" is not an evolutionary classification.
Why not, Grumpy? Human racial groups are observable whereas human species are not.
You know nothing about what your talking about. You have never studied the evidence because if you had you could not make such an ignorant comment. Again the human superiority prejudice betrays you. To paraphrase your posts you say, "No,we're special, we couldn't come from the same process as those(sniff) common animals!!! And those nasty apes are no relatives of mine!!!" Oh, grow up!!! Talk about racism. You go one better with "speciesism"Yes, all human beings and their fossil remains are all one human species.
Grumpy
PS I'm still waiting for your evidence which doesn't agree with mine. Just make sure it passes the scientific method or don't waste my time.
Post #73
Well it seems this thread has become moot...
The board was voted out and a new less ID oriented board was elected,
furthermore the trial itself didn't go well for the ID-ists, so that will more
than likely end the issue in Dover.
The board was voted out and a new less ID oriented board was elected,
furthermore the trial itself didn't go well for the ID-ists, so that will more
than likely end the issue in Dover.
Post #74
On a lighter note, the defendants' attorney noted that the final day [of the trial] was the fortieth, and asked the judge whether this was deliberate. The court collapsed in laughter when the judge replied: "Not by design".
Reproduced without the kind permission, but I hope with the kind indulgence, of 'New Scientist' magazine, 12 November 2005, page 6.
Reproduced without the kind permission, but I hope with the kind indulgence, of 'New Scientist' magazine, 12 November 2005, page 6.
Post #75
The verdict is in.
ID loses. ID is really creationism in disguise. The judge even accused the proponents of the ID policy in Dover of being dishonest.
From a legal standpoint, Dover loses to, but in the larger sense, the town of Dover wins.
ID loses. ID is really creationism in disguise. The judge even accused the proponents of the ID policy in Dover of being dishonest.
From a legal standpoint, Dover loses to, but in the larger sense, the town of Dover wins.
Post #76
Indeed, the verdict is in. This doesn't stop the ID/Creationist camp from trying harder, but they may spend some time licking their wounds and seeking a more subtle approach. That approach may be what they've pushed here and there already--trying to force the inclusion of "arguments against evolution" into the curriculum.
It seems to me, we should focus our efforts on trying to counter the misinformation of the ID/Creationist camp, when they say that accepting evolution absolutely requires abandoning religion. They've done quite well with this argument, convincing many people that it must be true, when it isn't at all. That is: we should try to de-fuse the controversy part of the discussion, so we can talk about the real issues.
It seems to me, we should focus our efforts on trying to counter the misinformation of the ID/Creationist camp, when they say that accepting evolution absolutely requires abandoning religion. They've done quite well with this argument, convincing many people that it must be true, when it isn't at all. That is: we should try to de-fuse the controversy part of the discussion, so we can talk about the real issues.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #78
Quite so. There is a movement afoot, particularly in the plastics industry, to replace these utilitarian implements with the SPORK. Now, a spork is insufficiently tined to serve adequately as a skewering device; the bowl is insufficiently large to serve adequately in liquid processing; the spaces between the tines (or are they hemitines, being no more than half length?) provide drainage that actually interferes with liquid processing; the hemitines, when unprotected by culinary globs skewered on their ends, come into dangerously close apposition to the cheeks, with the danger of physical injury. Clearly, the spork is not only poorly designed, it is dangerous. It bespeaks the breathtaking inanity of those who would foist it upon us.Chimp wrote:Like FORK or SPOON!so we can talk about the real issues
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #80
I noted with interest the response of conservative columnist Cal Thomas to the verdict.
To summarize (from memory), he is ostensibly happy with the verdict, even though he is very anti-evolution. He goes on to say that religious conservatives should 'give up' trying to reform the public school system, and instead should abandon it in favor of private schools or home schooling. He of course, through in some slanted mis-characterization of public schools while he was at it.
To summarize (from memory), he is ostensibly happy with the verdict, even though he is very anti-evolution. He goes on to say that religious conservatives should 'give up' trying to reform the public school system, and instead should abandon it in favor of private schools or home schooling. He of course, through in some slanted mis-characterization of public schools while he was at it.
