It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Natural Selection Shrinks Herd of Kansas Darwinists
by Scott Ott

(2005-05-03) -- Elderly residents still recall stories of the dust clouds that rolled through Salina as herds of Darwinists thundered across the Kansas plains unchallenged by competition -- unquestionably dominating, and some say destroying, their environment.

But as selective pressures mounted, Darwinists forced to fend for themselves in the natural arena of logic often fell prey to scrappy skeptics who contended for equal space in the Darwinist's natural habitat.

Some celebrate the success of the skeptics as healthy for the overall environment, while concerned conservationists race against the clock to raise funds and public awareness to rescue and shelter the Darwinist.

As they were driven from the public square in recent decades, Darwinists sought shelter in classrooms where they received protection from competing species and intellectual predators.

However, even in this cloistered preserve, Darwinists often struggled for survival among themselves, with competing variants turning on each other in a desperate attempt to pass on their own blueprint for life.

Some see a metaphor for the plight of the Darwinist in current efforts by environmentalists in California to kill off 3,000 feral pigs in order to protect a dwindling population of Santa Cruz foxes from birds of prey which may have come originally to feed on piglets.

In any case, the survival of the once-proud Darwinist may rest in human efforts to protect it from natural selection in the isolated zones which have become its last bastion of hope.


First, I found this article hilarious. It's from scrappleface.com, where Scott Ott satarizes the news but provides links in his stories to the real story, so you can know what he's talking about. At first, I was just amused by this little story, but then I clicked some of the links. There were two books that were linked to which Amazon.com carries. One was written by a biochemist from Lehigh University, explaining that, while there is evidence of macro evolution, the theory just doesn't hold up with micro evolution. Kinda the opposite arguement of most creationists today until you look at what defines micro. He's refering to microevolution as evolution of cells, and with his research he doesn't believe it to be possible. The other book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds kinda speaks for its self.

What I found really interesting, though, was this article from CBS News

It is a biased article complaining about horrible children coming into their biology class with questions that evolution can't answer. The gist of the article is that it's causing a disruptive learning environment, and that kids should just stop asking questions and accept what they're told. Here's a quote by one of the teachers interviewed:


"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."


That's right, kids. Asking Mr. Williamson questions he doesn't have the answer makes him uncomfortable, so sit down, shut up, and accept what anyone in authority tells you. Does anyone else see a problem with this?




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

That's right, kids. Asking Mr. Williamson questions he doesn't have the answer makes him uncomfortable, so sit down, shut up, and accept what anyone in authority tells you. Does anyone else see a problem with this?


Well, let’s see, kids being coached by their parents to disrupt class in order to promote their (or more accurately, their parents) particular religious viewpoint.

Yep, I do have a problem with that. If you are in a public school, then sit down and shut up. If you want to proselytize, then go to a private school.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Personally, I was raised to question everything. If something didn't click or make sense, there was no shame in asking for more information or clarification. If someone was stating something as fact, and I knew it to be wrong but didn't have the extensive knowlege to address the incorrect assumption, I was taught to go to sources I suspected did. A lot of the time, that was my parents.

For instance, my sister (raised the same way) took US Government in High School during the impeachment of Clinton. Her government teacher was raising a storm about impeaching a president for having sex. My sister knew that wasn't the case, but absloutly could not go toe to toe with a government teacher when it came to politics. So what did she do? Well, she went home, talked with my parents. They didn't coach her, but they did tell her to call her grandfather, David Schippers, who was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the Hous Judiciary Committee to Impeach President Clinton. He did coach her, and she came into class and made a monkey of that teacher. Not because she was being disruptive, but because the teacher had no arguement my sister wasn't prepared for, yet the teacher never relented in saying it was all about sex. The rest of her class did, though.

So as for "coaching" children on talking points and questions, I'm ok with that. They're still developing, and don't have the ability to, on their own resources, question effectivly someone who's been teaching the same subject for years.

Besides, sitting down and shutting up is a major problem with public school. You're considered stupid if you ask questions, but you're also stupid if you don't learn the way a teacher teaches. Interactive teaching is a heck of a lot more effective than lecturing, as the students get involved and retain a lot more.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Couple of things here.
Darwins "Theory of Evolution" is just that. It is only a theory. Yes one that has a fairly large amount of evidence to support it The facts have been in contention since he first wrote his book

From the news article that junglejake provided,


Williamson and his Kansas colleagues aren't alone. An informal survey released in April from the National Science Teachers Association found that 31 percent of the 1,050 respondents said they feel pressure to include "creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom." A troubled history These findings confirm the experience of Gerry Wheeler, the group's executive director, who says that about half the teachers he talks to tell him they feel ideological pressure when they teach evolution. And according to the survey, while 20 percent of the teachers say the pressure comes from parents, 22 percent say it comes primarily from students.

By the finding of this informal poll, only 20% point the finger at the parents while 22% point the finger at the students as to who is pressuring the teachers.

Reading the article, makes no mention of children being coached by parents to be disruptive in class.

Question, what is the purpose of school? Either public or private?
It is a building where chilred are educated.

Education



the activities of educating or instructing or teaching; activities that impart knowledge or skill


Since Evolution is still considered to only be a theory, why only promote that theory above all others? Why supress other theories?

Why does the thought of students asking questions to the teacher make the teacher uncomfortable? The teacher is there to teach. What happened to the lofty aim of teachers to




Our goal as teachers of the humanities is to provide students with the ability to argue their own minds, to be heard. Without that ability, any human is open to losing his/her power before others.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The problem is that these are science classes, not comparative religion classes. If a kid has a reasonable question regarding science then ask away, but if the child attempts to interject religion into the discussion, then they are in the wrong classroom. That is the long and short of it. And yes, those kids are coached at home. I guarantee 100 percent that those kids attempting to interject religion into a science class have been coached and pressured by their parents into doing so. The parents are too chicken bleep to confront the school teachers themselves, so they are using the kids as proxies.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The problem is that these are science classes, not comparative religion classes. If a kid has a reasonable question regarding science then ask away,


But that's what they're doing. Read the article. The questions are from a scientific basis pointing out the holes in evolution. At least now I understand why you felt the way you did; coaching kids to disrupt a science class with religion isn't good. It's not the time nor the place. However, questioning evolution by pointing out holes in it in the classroom is the time and the place.


I guarantee 100 percent that those kids attempting to interject religion into a science class have been coached and pressured by their parents into doing so.

This, too, is addressed in that article and is not the case. As Ken pointed out, only 20% of them are being pressured by their parents, while 22% of them are questioning on their own.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Take a look at the questions that "Icons of Evolution," is promoting.
They are of a scientific nature and are questions that a teacher should not find uncomfortable but should actually welcome. I promote open mindness with my son as puch him to question everything (not just the evolutionary theory)
Here is a link to what these 10 questions are:
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.

If a science teacher believes that these questions are only for the promotion of religious agendas, then why should the teacher not instruct the students why these "religous beliefs" are wrong. Would you not agree that this would actually teach the children?



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I was not raised to question everything, but I did. I asked the ministers and pastors at my church many questions they could not answer. That made them uncomfortable too. It was by questioning suspect material and views that I eventually broke away from the Prison of Christianity.

So yes. One should always ask those in power who try and feed you any party line questions. I wonder if these kids jave asked those same questions of their religous leaders? I bet they get mighty uncomfortable too.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
First, I found this article hilarious.

GEORGIA SCHOOLS TO STOP TEACHING LAW OF GRAVITY Murphy’s Law Could Be Next, District Warns


He's refering to microevolution as evolution of cells

Thats dumb, I don't care if he has a PHD. I think you are talking about Michael Behe.


That's right, kids. Asking Mr. Williamson questions he doesn't have the answer makes him uncomfortable

Because the questions are moronic.

Such as

Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


and

Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

Actually, that second one wasn't just moronic, its a lie. Embryos are similar, Haeckles drawingsweren't faked, they left out some details, and those drawings aren't even used anymore anyway.

The questions are

Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:

They are using these kids to create drama in science classrooms. They don't bother to give the kids the answers to these questions, which they already know.


It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher

He doesn't want to have to confront these kids who have been suckered into creationis propaganda and who's entire beleif system is ready to fall apart.


If something didn't click or make sense, there was no shame in asking for more information or clarification.

Those questions aren't about questioning evolution, they are designed by anti-creationist activists and distributed to students to ask in class to disrupt it. They are not valid questions.

I mean, do you honestly think that this:

Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

is an open and honest question? Its b/s, its propaganda, its garbage. Look at what these people are doing, they are literally distributing this stuff to kids, getting them to disrupt classrooms, trying to get 'materialism' and such discussed so that the class can become a religious discussion. Maybe scientists should start going to churchs and snatching the communion wafers out of preachers hand's to run protein analyses on them.

You're considered stupid if you ask questions

If a kid had been thru a proper science education, and still asked some of those questions, then the kid is stupid.


kenshiro
Since Evolution is still considered to only be a theory, why only promote that theory above all others? Why supress other theories?

Evolution is the best supported theory, its also the consensus theory, and there's been a consensus on it for, what, a hundred years? Why bother to teach students theories that either

  1. been refuted, like lamarckism or goldschmidt's theories
  2. Are not scientific hypotheses, like creationism or intelligent design


What alternative to evolution do you suggest be taught?

Why does the thought of students asking questions to the teacher make the teacher uncomfortable?

Context. The article is about questions formulated by anti-evolutionists to distrupt classroom science education, to draw out a political issue. The teacher is uncomfortable, specifically, because he doesn't want to have to confront the student anddebate his faith or disrupt the class. The questions are made so as to serve as a back door for religion, not merely 'question science'.


junglejake
The questions are from a scientific basis pointing out the holes in evolution.

Incorrect. The questions are not scientific, they are propagandistic, and they don't point out any 'holes' in evolution. They are old questions, that have been addressed numerous times, but the creationist activist camp is still pushing them, because they can be used to discuss religion in science classes, not because these people care about actual science. This is pseudo-science.

As Ken pointed out, only 20% of them are being pressured by their parents, while 22% of them are questioning on their own.

Not for nothing, but thats rather disengenius. What percentage of these kids have parents who accept evolution??? Probably none. These kids are brought up in a creationist household, the parents don't need to exert overt pressure on them.

kenshiro
Take a look at the questions that "Icons of Evolution," is promoting.

These are the questions that are being promoted. They are bunk.

then why should the teacher not instruct the students why these "religous beliefs" are wrong

Because then they'd be discussing religion. Do you really want the state debunking religion in science classes? Testing kids on it? Failing students and making them repeat unitl they understand that 'ressurection is not physically possible' and 'textual analysis of gospel texts reveals contradictions that prove that its not the infallible word of god' etc etc??? Better, for everyone, to leave religion out of the discussion.


the article
In this climate, science teachers say they must find new methods to defuse what has become a politically and emotionally charged atmosphere in the classroom

As if there isn't enough problems in schools, as if these kids who are running around killing each other aren't already stressed/damaged enough. Now science teachers have to worry about this, they have to present their topic to students in such a way as to prevent emotional outbursts and breakdowns from these students. I've known a number of people who were raised creationist, and when they considered the evidence, over time, they eventually came to accept evoltuion, but their entire faith had been built up around these ludicrous religious assertions about evolution, and they had seen the obvious lying and hypocrisy and deceptiveness, that they ended up loosing all faith, at least temporarily before eventually assimilating it all. Teenagers are 'fragile' enough, we don't need these kinds of things going on in school. Just teach them science. Its b/s that any of these parents, let alone 20 percent (at least) are forcing this issue with their kids and literally putting them in danger.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

You are asking about abiogenisis. A simple explanaition of some abiogenisis theories on the origin of life.

Or some more recent research.



DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

The so called “Cambrian explosion” occurred over a period of 20 to 30 million years. Hardly a rapid onslaught of new life forms.

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

Homology is a phenomena that is supported by the theory of evolution, and only makes sense in the context of evolution. As for a the claims the a specific textbook might or might not make, I can’t help you there unless you provide specific examples.

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

Again, unless you provide specific examples of poorly written textbooks, what is the point?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

What?
Archaeopteryx is a creature that shares traits with both birds and dinosaurs. I do not think that the current theory is that all birds descended from the archaeopteryx. The archaeopteryx is merely the earliest creature yet discovered with clearly birdlike features.

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

Clarification on the peppered moth story Furthermore, research has shown that peppered moths do rest on tree trunks 25% ot the time. The rest of the time they are on branches (25%) or branch trunk junctions (50%).

So this question isn't even valid. (source)


DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

WOW, what a perfect example of evolution in action. Thanks.

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

So what if one day, the flies with the extra wings were able to survive because of the extra wings, while the others died. That would be the process of evolution. As it stands now, the mutant flies don’t survive. This is perfectly in keeping with the theory of evolution.

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

I think most paleontologists are in agreement that Australopithecus is a human ancestor.

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Evolution is a theory based on available evidence. So far no credible eveidence has been presented to negate it.



[edit on 3-5-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
so Nygdan, are you just trying to say that it is wrong for students to question those who are teaching them?
If the questions are bunk? Then what is wrong with the teacher pointing this out? Educating the students as to why the questions are bunk and are incorrect?

As I stated, Evolution is a theory and one that does have a good deal of evidence to back it up, You basically re-worded what i said. As for what alternatives can / should be taught. a simple statement that evolution is only a theory and that there are others. If a student wants to learn more of them, please visit the library.

By a teacher and or parent denying the instruction or explaination ( to the best of their ability) either of these theories are wrong and will lead to our children just accepting what others "teach" them. If Darwin had done this, then we would not be having this discussion as he would have blindly accepted the creationist beliefs as was predominate back then.

I thought that the motto of this site was to deny ignorance, by not at least presenting both sides of any matter the begining of man or any other subject ionly promotes ignorance.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I've always thought giraffes and whales (any swimming mammal) are great evolution examples. The giraffes feed on tender, tasty (so I'm told !) leaves on treetops. As the theory goes the giraffes with longer necks, and therefore better survivability, reproduced in greater numbers, and essentially gained ground in the gene pool until the shorter neck giraffes just didn't survive.

Whales have bones in their flippers similar to elephants or other land mammals. The theory goes that they were land mammals that started to live/feed/reproduce in the water until eventually those with adaptations for swimming had better survivability, reproduced in greater numbers, and essentially gained ground in the gene pool until the land lubbers just didn't survive.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The evolution is a hypothesis which is rather well supported by the fact. The mechanism of the evolution is very complex, though. It is essentially a parallel computing problem, whereby the "genetic algorithm" is run on a very large number of "machines", i.e. the individual organisms. We are talking billions of "CPUs".

The parralel nature of this computational process explains the very high degree of complexity of its product. I don't see why one should resort to intelligent design to explain the existing life forms.

In addition, I find the term "intelligent design" blasphemous. If anything, it should be "divine".



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I like how you finished your statement by comparing questioning evolution to school shootings. So, Nygdan, what's your solution? All those stupid parents (if, of course, they've gotten a "proper" scientific education, otherwise they're just ignorant, I hope) stop indoctronating thier kids with idiot mumbo-jumbo like creation and just accept a scientific theory whose proponents cry out "stop being stupid and see it the way we do" whenever they're questioned.

Let's face it, the theory of evolution is practically a religion unto its self. You're supposed to just accept it, and view the facts that support the theory while ignoring those that do not. At the same time, people who don't believe are criticized, labeled stupid, and demonized if they have any scientific credibility at all. How can you not expect kids who have been taught something vastly different to not have questions? Yeah, now the kids are getting talking points. However, teachers have had talking points for a while now, why not the kids?

Most importantly, in my opinion, is the hearts of the children. If they're bringing up these points in an effort to disrupt class, then no, they should not be asking those questions. If, however, they are asking the questions because they want answers or to understand, let them ask the questions. The questions you quoted from that ten link were pretty easy to refute. Granted, the teacher doesn't have the answers in his teacher's handbook, but they're pretty straight forward if the person has done any research into the topic they're teaching on. Besides, that ten link really ruined some good questions. For example:


PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


Were I to be writing these talking points, I wouldn't be going at the angle of a cover-up. It's more, in my opinion, willing ignorance. The question about the Peppered Moth I would pose is why do evolutionists use the peppered moth study, an obvious example of micro evolution, to prove macro evolution?

As for the Archaeopteryx, I spent about a page discussing this little buddy a while back on ATS, and don't feel like going again due to time constraints. And with that, I'm off to work some more.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Let's face it, the theory of evolution is practically a religion unto its self. You're supposed to just accept it, and view the facts that support the theory while ignoring those that do not.


I did my best using Google (usually works quite well on various subjects) and I didn't find any compelling facts that would disprove the evolution theory. Yes, it's complex and a few things might be hard to explain -- I'll give you an example -- predicting the weather -- we should be able to do it reliably based on well known physics laws, but solving a system of such complexity numerically, and the system being intrinsically unstable, is still a challenge.

I would love to see proponents of the "intelligent design" extend their effort to proclaming "intellignet weather patterns". They should boycott any TV station that has a weatherman.



At the same time, people who don't believe are criticized, labeled stupid, and demonized if they have any scientific credibility at all.


Between the DNA evidence and fossils, the evolution theory has nailed it down cold. One can still claim the earth is flat, how are we expected to react to that.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
What is sad is that you question science, good kid, you question christianity, YOU GO TO HELL!!! KILL!!!! RAPE!!!!! SLAUGHTER!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!

Also, only people who say evolution is wrong are christians/religous people. Lets remove the cross and replace it with a ostrich with it's head in the sand, is a much better reprensentation of creation.

Theory, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!! Theory is not guess, shot in the dark, or acid trip gone bad, it is FACT! Theory of GRAVITY! Theory of RELATIVITY! Theory of WHATEVER! is FACT! Or is gravity a pigment of my immigration?(figment of my imagination) Theory is how science says fact, but always more to learn!

Case in point, gravity affects things with mass, but it affects light photons, something that doesn't have mass. If it did we would be dead, even one atom moving at the speed of light would pierce your body, times billions, you dead. So, how do BlackHoles suck in light when light photons don't have mass, and gravity only affects things with mass. Won't find the answer in the bible, but you will in science! Read Stephen Hawking Universe in a Nutshell, Theory of Everything, and Black Holes and Baby Universes.(or galaxy, been awhile since I read it) Why it is THEORY of GRAVITY. It exists, it is real, it is fact, but still studied to figure out all the effects/abilities/whatever of gravity.

So all the christians running around screaming "THEORY! KILL! THEORY! RAPE! SKY IS FALLING! THEORY!" are far more ignorant then any science teacher dealing with religous nut jobs.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Evolution in action !!!!!

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Are ugly children less loved?
Report: Parents more attentive to attractive kidsMSNBC
Updated: 12:33 p.m. ET May 3, 2005Most parents would deny it, but Canadian researchers have found that physical attractiveness affects how children are treated, according to a report Tuesday in The New York Times.


Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton watched how parents interacted with their children while shopping in supermarkets and found that so-called ugly ones were more neglected and allowed to engage in potentially dangerous behavior.
The team lead by Dr. W. Andrew Harrell, executive director of the Population Research Laboratory, followed more than 400 parents and their 2-to-5-year-old children around 14 Canadian grocery stores, noting whether the adults strapped their youngsters into the grocery cart seat, the newspaper reports.

Researchers also observed how often the child wandered more than 10 feet away and whether the kids were allowed to engage in risky behaviors such as standing up in the shopping cart.

The children's attractiveness was rated on a 10-point scale by the research team.


Best genetic material?
The differences were striking. The researchers found that 1.2 percent of the homely children were buckled into the shopping cart, compared with 13.3 percent of the prettiest ones. When a man was in charge of shopping, none of the unattractive children were strapped into the carts, while 12.5 percent of the cute children were.

Less attractive children were also allowed to wander further away and were out of sight of their parents more often.

Age played a factor as well. Younger children were more likely to be secured and older adults were more lax about letting kids wander out of sight.

The researchers speculated that Darwinian behavior was responsible for the parents' actions. Pretty children represent the best genetic material and, therefore, get more attention, the researchers hypothesized.

Other experts disagreed, saying that there's no evolutionary reason for parents to favor pretty children over less attractive ones, the newspaper reported.


[edit on 3-5-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think we are getting close to making that facts fit the theory rather than proving the theory. Not much change there, this have been going on as long as I can remember, as far as evolution goes.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
What is sad is that you question science, good kid, you question christianity, YOU GO TO HELL!!! KILL!!!! RAPE!!!!! SLAUGHTER!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!
...
Theory, IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!! Theory is not guess, shot in the dark, or acid trip gone bad, it is FACT! Theory of GRAVITY! Theory of RELATIVITY! Theory of WHATEVER! is FACT! Or is gravity a pigment of my immigration?(figment of my imagination) Theory is how science says fact, but always more to learn!

...

So all the christians running around screaming "THEORY! KILL! THEORY! RAPE! SKY IS FALLING! THEORY!" are far more ignorant then any science teacher dealing with religous nut jobs.



Originally posted by JungleJake
a scientific theory whose proponents cry out "stop being stupid and see it the way we do" whenever they're questioned.


I really don't need to say anything more, but I just wanted to say that Hawking's da bomb! Love that guy!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Well, I'm not a "religious nut" and I'm not sold on this theory. Evolution, eh maybe, adaptation, probably.

BTW, I would and did challenge my teachers. What the hell, it was the 70's.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join