Did Humans Evolve From Earlier Species?
1 Dec
Only one country considered is less convinced than the United States:
Science, 2006 (H/T GrrlScientist)
* It’s worth noting that this data was published before the rise of the tea party movement.
20 Responses to “Did Humans Evolve From Earlier Species?”
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
-
-
December 2, 2011
[...] found this graph on Sheril Kirshenbaum’s blog: Culture of Science. Surprising. Find the United [...]
Leave a Reply
WHERE ARE DAILY POSTS?
Sheril Kirshenbaum is an author and director of The Energy Poll at The University of Texas at Austin.
HELPFUL LINKS
Policy Fellowships for Scientists & Engineers
How Does A Scientist Get Involved In Policy?
Jobs in Congress
Senate & House
Where I Work
UT Energy Poll
Protect Biodiversity & Support Conservation
SavingSpecies.org
Friends of Bonobos
All tangible evidence indicates that Homo sapiens females were produced in a single cytogenetic step from one or more Homo neanderthalensis females in Europe. These females were not produced through the agency of sexual reproduction and must have been produced semi-meiotically as I first proposed in 1984. Once one or more Homo sapiens females appeared, they hybridized with Neanderthal males to produce fertile hybrids which then propagated sexually to produce Homo sapiens, our Caucasoid (white) ancestors. Other Homo sapiens races (subspecies) may have had other hominid ancestors with Homo sapiens arising indepenently in other parts of the world. The races of man definitely had separate origins the original features of which have been largely blurred through interbreeding.
That is our position, one in complete accord with cytogenetics and the testimony of the fossil record as far as it has been ascertained at the present time.
Literature cited
Davison, J.A. (1984). Semi-meiosis as an Evoluionary Mechanism. J. Theor. Biol. 111: 725-735.
Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison. Lulu Publishers,(2010).
Other sources, essays and papers can be found at -
jadavison.wordpress.com
Davison, you may please save your very poor attempt at racist “science” for the comic books. It is one thing to present an interesting cellular event for discussion in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is something quite different to make such staggering leaps simply to prop up an argument for racial purity, and I know of no academic publication that would permit THAT approach to pseudo-science to grace their pages.
Racism is not only a shadow over the “other” – it is a shadow over us all, and it is darkest over those who feel it least and allow its pernicious influence to fester.
well said j Patrick!
J. Patrick Malone
You are absolutely right but for the wrong reasons. The reason our science is unacceptable is because contemporary evolutionary science is still dominated by the Darwinian, atheist paradigm for which not a scintilla of either experimental or fossil evidence has ever existed. Darwinism in all its many versions is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role for Natural Selection. Natural Selection was never a device for evolutionary change. Quite the contrary, it was always in the past and still at present is entirely anti-evoltionary. Go to my website and read my recent essay – “Natural Selection: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism.” If you have any questions, I will be happy to address them here or anywhere else where civil dialogue can be assured.
For you to accuse me of racial bigotry is inexcusable and reflects an abysmal ignorance of both my character and my science.
The races of Homo sapiens are very real and were not produced through natural or any other form of selection. They represent the independent appearance of Homo sapiens not necessarily even from the same immediate homonid ancestor. The races of man are subspecies and not incipient species. They are varieties and are all evolutionary dead ends. We further believe that creative organic evolution is no longer in progress. The present biota is the terminus of a planned sequence in which chance played at best a trivial role.
That is our thesis which is in complete accord with the fossil record and the experimental laboratory. I will abandon my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis when that becomes necessary and not a moment before.
jadavison.wordpress.com
J. Patrick Malone
Your vicious attack on my character and science brand you as the bigot not me. Your knee jerk, uninformed assault is typical of what we have come to expect wherever we have presented our science. I am not a racist which you would know if you had bothered to read any of my essays or my published papers. Those who deny a planned universe, as every Darwinian must do, are the enemies of science and always have been. Darwin’s infantile propositions set in motion a mass hysteria which has persisted unabated for over a century and a half. It is the only model acceptable to the congenital atheist mentality. EVERYTHING in the Darwinian model is wrong, dead wrong.
My Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and my Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) are firmly based in the realities revealed by the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.
You can call me all the names you choose and it will not detract me from my thesis. Only experimental proof can cause me to retract anything I have ever presented whether in refereed journals or anywhere else. My science rests securely on the science of my several predecessors, not one of whom was a religious or atheist zealot. When you attack me you attack them. It is as simple as that.
jadavison.wordpress.com
Uh, that’s not all the countries. Looks like a lot of European countries to me. Where’s Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan?
The results of an opinion poll have no bearing on the scientific method, or wether or not something is true or false. If you are a real scientist, you do not refer to polls like a politician or some other form of huckster.
Science is not about opinion, or the number of people who believe in something. It is a rigorous way of dealing with data and coming to provisional conclusions about the universe. It works in one way and one way only. People like to associate themselves with ‘science’ because they believe that it makes them look intelligent. This association does not make them so, and it does not confer a veneer of truth to what they publish.
If this is the level of thinking on display from students at UT Austin’s Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, what are we to make of their admissions requirements? Absolutely appalling.
In reality William, public understanding of science matters tremendously because it influences policy decisions. I should also point out that these results were published in the journal Science, so I’m not the only individual who feels they are significant.
I haven’t been a graduate student for many years – since before I worked as a science fellow in Congress, at Duke, and now here.
Unfortunately, the journal SCIENCE, like its British counterpart NATURE, is dominated by Darwinian atheism and always has been. I agree that public understanding is vital if we expect to replace Darwinian mysticism with real science. An atheist agenda has no place in science any more than does religious fundamentalism.
“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
That is what we have done!
jadavison.wordpress.com
That’s also not true. AAAS is often criticized by ‘new’ atheists for being too ‘accommodating’ to religion. Coincidentally, they have a discussion coming up in a few days on the topic.
Check out Mr Davison’s page. I think that you’ll find it is chock-a-block full of nuttiness and kooks-ville nonsense.
Darwinism is not a subject even for discussion. It is the most absurd proposition in the history of science.
jadavison.wordpress.com
There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Evolution happened and has been observed to happen. The theory of evolution describes what we see. It is one of the most well establish, uncontroversial and solid theories in all science. The theory of evolution is backed up by a veritable mountain of evidence, observation and research.
The only objections to evolution come from people with religious views at odds with reality.
Well, I for one believe these results are very telling. I don’t think of it as so much as “proving anything scientific”, but I think it’s somewhat disturbing to see the United States at the bottom of this list. If anything, it’s a social analysis maybe more fitting for sociology. The United States is one of the most advanced nations in the world in terms of technology and science. In addition, we consider ourselves probably more “civilized” socially than the majority of countries in the world.
After all of this….40% of this country believes in human evolution? It absolutely blows my mind. The fact that nearly everyone in the US embraces/accepts technology and science in some way (everything from iphones, video games, cars,space exploration, medicine etc etc), yet this one subject still brings debate, scares me. Religion has influenced a large portion of our population so much that we find ourselves overwhelmingly beneath multiple nations in embracing a relatively straight forward scientific theory? Yikes.
Am I an atheist? Sort of.
Do I believe in human evolution? Absolutely.
Do I think you’re a fool if you don’t? I’ll bite my tongue.
It’s worth noting that this data was published before the rise of the tea party movement.
just checked the EVOLVED variable in the GSS. acceptance of evolution was higher in 2010 than 2008 or 2006. could be noise.
ad here’s some data from muslim countries not on the list above:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/11/evolution-the-muslim-world-religious-beliefs/
Visiting the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago is always a fun time, especially the chimpanzee exhibit, the human species closest relative. The zoo does a great job of researching & documenting the physiological, psychological, and societal similarities between humans & chimps. If any of you are in town, let me know, I’ll give you a tour of these lovely relatives of ours.
This is so disheartening if true, that the majority populace of our great country does not seem to have a broader scope of a common sense evolutionary reality.
I see I have silenced the rabid reactions of some who frequent this website. I did the same thing at Larry Moran’s “Sandwalk” blog. This has always been the standard reaction of the Darwinian faithful. They have invariably refused to recognize their critics. They have gotten away with murder for all too long . I will keep after them for as long as I am able. Trust me or not. It really doesn’t matter. Sooner or later, as Oscar Wilde put it -
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later to be found out.”
jadavison.wordpress.com
jadavison.wordpress.com
I have never denied a past organic evolution. I am certain that it occurred. It is only the mechanism by which it took place (past tense) that several of us have questioned. I am not at all certain that true speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories will ever take place again. I believe the evolutionary climax was reached with the appearance of Homo sapiens aproximately 100,000years ago. It is generally agreed that a new Genus has not appeared in the last 2 million years. I have extended that to suggest that speciation also ceased more recently without a single verified new species in historical times. All that we see today is extinction without a single replacement even as the environment is undergoing drastic changes due largely to the influence of modern civilization.
Several others have reached similar conclusions, notably William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf, Pierre Grasse and Robert Broom. Even Julian Huxley, a Darwinian selectionist, reached the same conclusuion, a fact that the Darwinians conveniently ignore. I have summarized this history in my book, my webpage and my newer essays. The Darwinians continue, as they always have, to pretend that we do not exist.
jadavison.wordpress.com
P.S. I thank the moderators for allowing me to present my thesis here.