I believe neither creationism or evolution should be taught in schools.
English
-
So what, should people not be educated on how the world came to be in order to avoiding pissing off people who choose not to accept the truth? It would be one thing to not teach either of them IF evolution and creationism were just alternatives to one another, but that's the thing, they aren't. Facts are that evolution is a nearly flawless scientific theory and creationism is nothing more than an untested hypothesis. Evolution is practically confirmed to be a truthful process and therefore should be taught, especially since it's such an important topic. It's not just something you can skip over in an attempt to make everyone happy. If people want to have bizarre beliefs that conflict with scientific fact, that's their own choice...but don't ruin it for the others by making it so they can't even learn about it.
-
I love how you said it was nearly flawless. Far from it fries. Are you trying to tell me that somehow in the middle of the ocean a few amino acids got together perfectly (because if one was wrong the protein would be defective) made a protein and that proteins found [b]another[/b] protein that was made by a different combination of amino acids. But wait, two proteins doesn't even make a single cell organism. We'll need a lot more proteins for that. I'm sorry but the chance of even one protein being randomly made by some amino acids floating around and coming into contact is one out of billions. Now more proteins coming together and making a cingle cell organism? HAHAHAHAHA Tl;Dr Evolution is horse crap.
-
I don't think you understand the concept of "probability", nor do you actually understand the actual origin of life theory.
-
What you are talking about is the origin of life, not evolution. So, what should we teach our kids then?
-
Ok. Well evolution is that a single cell organism evolved into a multi-cell organism. If that's true wouldn't all the single-cell organisms have evolved already?
-
That is an uneducated argument that I hear all the time. Evolution is not goal oriented, it just favors those who can produce more offspring. If a population of single celled organisms can reproduce just fine, then odds are they will stay like that for a very long time. Say however, part of that population gets pulled down stream where the conditions are different. Not so different that they all immediately die mind you, but different enough that reproduction is harder. In that case, some offspring may be better adapted to their environments than others, and they live to create more offspring then the others. soon, the mutants outnumber the wild type and become the norm. Thousands of years later, they bear little to no resemblance of their brothers upstream. But those brothers are still there, because they are adapted already about as best as they can be to their environment.
-
alright, under your argument why did apes evolve into humans? Humans and apes reproduce in practically the same way? And that being said why did humans end up being able to think rationally, develop multiple languages, create complex tools, etc, etc.
-
The exact same argument holds true. In this case, I can even be more specific. The apes that both humans and chimpanzees evolved from lived in the jungles of Africa. At some point a population of that ape ended up stuck in the savanna, not an ideal environment for an arboreal (tree climbing) species. As a result, certain traits became beneficial to the survival of this unfortunate group of prehistoric ape. Among these, the ability to stand upright to see predators hiding in the brush and increased intelligence and resourcefulness to enable the apes to survive in an environment that they are poorly adapted too. Statistically, apes with traits like that more often lived long enough to produce offspring. In addition, features that allowed them to survive in the jungle (foot fingers, extremely strong upper bodies, etc.) fell into disuse, and began fading away as selection pressure was taken off of them. Eventually, these traits accumulated, and humans came into being. Meanwhile, the apes that stayed in the jungles became Chimpanzees and bonobos, simply a refinement of their original design, as there was no reason for them to change much.
-
Other apes can think rationally, learn non-vocal languages, and create and use tools.
-
So they can sharpen a stick to dig out grubs. Cool story bro. Can they make a wheel? Or better yet, a car? Or better yet, a plane? If we evolved from apes how did we get so advanced, it just doesn't add up to me.
-
[quote]So they can sharpen a stick to dig out grubs. Cool story bro. Can they make a wheel? Or better yet, a car? Or better yet, a plane? If we evolved from apes how did we get so advanced, it just doesn't add up to me.[/quote] Because we had to get smart. If we didn't we would have died. In fact, we nearly did. Humans are some of the least genetically diverse animals on the planet because at some point there were fewer than a thousand of us left and so we basically had to inbreed to survive. Human evolution was a trial by fire that we very nearly lost. The other apes had nice fluffy trees to hide in when the jaguars got hungry. Humans had sticks that we almost didn't learn how to use. When you have no physical advantages you gain mental ones to compensate, or you die.
-
One notable difference in genes we have accounts for weaker jaw muscles. All the other great apes have much stronger bites than us. With the reduction of the necessary muscles, they took up less space in the head and we gained a higher cranial capacity.