I hope my last comments put an end to this disgusting lie that evolution = racism. Anyone who understands evolution would know all humans used to have the same skin color and only because of migration to northern climates has the skin color of some humans gradually changed over several generations to a lighter color to be able to absorb more vitamin D where there is less sunlight. Anyone who under...more

I hope my last comments put an end to this disgusting lie that evolution = racism. Anyone who understands evolution would know all humans used to have the same skin color and only because of migration to northern climates has the skin color of some humans gradually changed over several generations to a lighter color to be able to absorb more vitamin D where there is less sunlight. Anyone who understands the evolution of humans knows skin color has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or anything else. If the creationists educated themselves about evolution there would be no more racism.

This dishonest idea that evolution = racism is another example of how little creationists know about the scientific fact of evolution they keep denying. It's also a good example of how creationists spread lies about evolution and scientists. Perhaps their lying is not intentional but their ignorance of science is no excuse for spreading lies about it.

There is a lot to learn about evolution. A person could spend a lifetime studying it. The creationists are way behind everyone else and they should make some effort to catch up. Instead they make the ignorance of Americans even worse by spreading lies about evolution. The creationists are making our country dumber instead of smarter. I suggest they should educate themselves about evolution instead of constantly lying about it.less

crc: "It is a mindset that one race is obviously superior to another" Chris333: "evolution logically allows (and I would add supports) racism." Obviously neither of you read my previous comment on this subject. I will repeat my comment here for your convenience. One reason so many Christians are racists is because they know nothing about evolution. One reason bio...more

crc: "It is a mindset that one race is obviously superior to another"

Chris333: "evolution logically allows (and I would add supports) racism."

Obviously neither of you read my previous comment on this subject.

I will repeat my comment here for your convenience.

One reason so many Christians are racists is because they know nothing about evolution.

One reason biologists are not racists is because they understand evolution better than anyone else. All races of human apes are same species. When our species arose in Africa, everybody had the same color skin. The human apes who traveled to colder climates were more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation if they had a lighter skin color. Lighter skin more easily absorbs vitamin D from the smaller amount of sunlight people get in northern climates. In tropical climates like Africa a darker skin color provides better protection from skin cancer.

A biologist could explain it better, but my point is a biologist understands the reasons for different skin colors, so he knows a person's skin color does not make him superior or inferior to anyone else. A person's skin color is the color that makes him most likely to survive in the environment he lives in. That's what natural selection is all about. Animals best able to survive in their environment pass on their genes to the next generation.

Christians who don't understand evolution are more likely to be racists, and their use of the Bible to justify slavery is very interesting, isn't it?less

agentorange, your last comments were excellent. I don't understand why creationists continue to deny what is so obviously true. Would you like to respond to seedplanter? He bores me to death.

Chris333, OK, you accept evolution, as long as you can stick God in there somewhere. Fine with me. I congratulate you. Perhaps you can help us evil atheists explain evolution to the Christians who still deny it.

Hitler often talked about the Lord and the Creator and Jesus, especially when he was talking about how horrible the Jews are. I have never once seen anything he ever said about evolution. Considering how little people know about evolution today, I doubt Hitler knew much about it. He sure didn't seem very interested in it, because I as far as I know he never once used the word evolution. If I&...more

Hitler often talked about the Lord and the Creator and Jesus, especially when he was talking about how horrible the Jews are. I have never once seen anything he ever said about evolution. Considering how little people know about evolution today, I doubt Hitler knew much about it. He sure didn't seem very interested in it, because I as far as I know he never once used the word evolution. If I'm wrong, who cares? He was nuts and he's dead.

If you look at my other comments on this thread you will find my explanation of why biologists, who understand evolution more than anyone, are not racists. The Deep South where I live is infested with racists and virtually every single one of them are creationists. When Darwin lived these creationists owned slaves. Darwin, by the way, often spoke strongly against slavery. So I'm wondering why Ben Stein is blaming the holocaust on Darwin, when it was mostly Christian creationists who were doing all the murdering of innocent women and children. Perhaps Ben Stein, like many other creationists, is a liar.less

"This article is about why Darwinism is dangerous." First of all it's called "evolution". Only creationists call it "darwinism" and I don't know why they do that. Whenever I see the word "darwinism" I immediately know the person using that word knows nothing about biology. Biological evolution is dangerous only to the people whose religious b...more

"This article is about why Darwinism is dangerous."

First of all it's called "evolution". Only creationists call it "darwinism" and I don't know why they do that. Whenever I see the word "darwinism" I immediately know the person using that word knows nothing about biology.

Biological evolution is dangerous only to the people whose religious beliefs conflict with it.

So what do you think about my quote from Carroll's book (about 20 comments ago).less

"Why would the first person to mention Hitler lose the argument?" That wasn't my idea but it makes sense. Hitler was more than insane. He was perhaps the most crazy person in human history. Since he was very far from being a typical person, mentioning his name to defend or attack an idea is meaningless.

Chris333, I have often heard people say "the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses the argument." Anyway I'm not here to argue or to talk about dead dictators. I'm interested in educating people about what I know about the science of evolution. crc didn't understand what Carroll said in his book (see my quote from his book about 15 comments ago). Do you...more

Chris333, I have often heard people say "the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses the argument."

Anyway I'm not here to argue or to talk about dead dictators. I'm interested in educating people about what I know about the science of evolution.

crc didn't understand what Carroll said in his book (see my quote from his book about 15 comments ago). Do you understand it? Do you understand how extremely important it is?less

crc, you didn't understand a word I said. Please read it again and keep reading it until you understand it. Also, please go back about 14 comments to read the entire paragraph I quoted from Carroll's book. Or you could remain willfully ignorant for the rest of your life. I don't care what you do. torus, I agree the article was ignorant, but your comments, torus, were excellent.

I would like to add something to my last comments. This is extremely important. The common ancestor species of modern chimpanzees and modern humans split into two groups about five million years ago and evolved differently to be able to survive in their different environments. Creationists have the delusion this can't be proven. They think because nobody alive today was alive 5 million ...more

I would like to add something to my last comments. This is extremely important.

The common ancestor species of modern chimpanzees and modern humans split into two groups about five million years ago and evolved differently to be able to survive in their different environments.

Creationists have the delusion this can't be proven. They think because nobody alive today was alive 5 million years ago, evolution is just an opinion, no better than the idea people were magically created by their invisible friend. They think they can explain away all the fossil evidence. Without bothering to understand it, they say similarity of DNA in chimp apes and human apes is because a common designer made it that way.

What the creationists don't understand is my quote from Carroll's book (about 12 comments ago). They should read it and study it carefully. If they don't understand it they should buy the book and read it, or study this information on the internet. If they do the hard work of understanding it, they will know the "common designer" idea doesn't work for variable markers.

This is very important because what Carroll said is correct: "The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt."

This is the lead-pipe evidence creationists don't know about it. This is why biologists are as certain about evolution as they are about the earth's orbit around the Sun. This is why biologists are 100% certain the creationists are wrong. Creationists must study this and understand it.less

tgender, you can quote all the scientists you want, but your quotes are not evidence for your magic man. I suggest you should admit your magic man idea is just a wild guess. About 10 comments ago I quoted a paragraph in the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll. What Carroll explained is how the same method used for p...more

tgender, you can quote all the scientists you want, but your quotes are not evidence for your magic man. I suggest you should admit your magic man idea is just a wild guess.

About 10 comments ago I quoted a paragraph in the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll.

What Carroll explained is how the same method used for paternity testing in humans is also used to determine evolutionary relationships. This DNA analysis is powerful enough to call evolution a proven fact. Nobody here has said a thing about it.

This is typical of creationists. They claim evolution is false because god-did-it. When shown evidence they are wrong they lie about the evidence. If the evidence is too powerful for them to lie about, they completely ignore it, hoping it will go away. Why are creationists so terrified of evolution? Why are they so afraid of learning anything? Why won't they say anything about what Carroll said in his book?

A normal person would study this evidence. An intelligent person would understand it, and since he already accepts the results of paternity testing for humans, he would understand he also needs to accept the testing for evolutionary relationships because both use the same method.less

gnich40, we can't disprove your god fantasy for the same reason we can't disprove a child's invisible friend. But scientists have successfully proven beyond any doubt your magic man is not required to explain the diversity of life. They explained that without the god hypothesis, so you're going to have to hide your god of the gaps in some other gap until scientists chase it awa...more

gnich40, we can't disprove your god fantasy for the same reason we can't disprove a child's invisible friend. But scientists have successfully proven beyond any doubt your magic man is not required to explain the diversity of life. They explained that without the god hypothesis, so you're going to have to hide your god of the gaps in some other gap until scientists chase it away again.less

Chris333, I already talked about that. Freedom of speech means you can say 1+1=3 all you want if you don't mind being laughed at. Freedom of speech does NOT mean you can force a math teacher to do your lying for you. Replace "1+1=3" with "god made people out of nothing". Do you get it? If you're an evolution denier or if you think 1 plus 1 equals 3, you probably do...more

Chris333, I already talked about that. Freedom of speech means you can say 1+1=3 all you want if you don't mind being laughed at. Freedom of speech does NOT mean you can force a math teacher to do your lying for you.

Replace "1+1=3" with "god made people out of nothing". Do you get it? If you're an evolution denier or if you think 1 plus 1 equals 3, you probably don't get it.

It's very simple. People who know nothing about math should not be allowed to have anything to say about what is taught in a math class. Science is no different. Creationists obviously know nothing about science, so they should not be allowed to say anything about what's in a science class.

Are scientists afraid of intelligent design magic? This is a claim liars like Ben Stein make, but no, scientists are not afraid of magic. They laugh at magic and they laugh at people who think magic is real. That's really what intelligent design creationism is. They invoke a designer (god) to perform a miracle (magic).

What gets the attention of scientists and science teachers is when people who believe in magic try to force science teachers to teach magic as if magic is a valid scientific alternative to science.

If you or anyone else doesn't understand what I just said, it doesn't matter. You can waste taxpayer's money trying to force magic into science classes, but you will always lose in court. Not long ago a creationist school board in Dover lost in court, wasted one million dollars of taxpayer money, and were voted out of office by some extremely angry taxpayers.less

Quecat, this is the quote from Carroll's book I promised you. If you or anyone else has any questions about it, please read the book first, then get back to me. I'm not interested in wasting time explaining science to people who are too lazy to educate themselves. "Fortunately, there is, however, an altogether new way of deciphering species' relationships. It also relies on ...more

Quecat, this is the quote from Carroll's book I promised you. If you or anyone else has any questions about it, please read the book first, then get back to me. I'm not interested in wasting time explaining science to people who are too lazy to educate themselves.

"Fortunately, there is, however, an altogether new way of deciphering species' relationships. It also relies on DNA, but rather than being based on the degree of sequence similarity, it looks for the presence and absence of certain landmarks in specific places in species DNA. These landmarks are produced by accidental insertions of junk DNA sequences near genes. Particular chunks of junk DNA, call long interspersed elements (LINES) and short interspersed elements (SINES), are very easy to detect. Once a SINE or LINE is inserted, there is no active mechanism for removing it. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy. These insertion events are very rare; therefore, their presence in the same place in the DNA of two species can be explained only by the species sharing a common ancestor. The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt."less

tgender, whatever. Who cares? I asked for evidence for your supernatural magic. You don't have any evidence for your god's magic, do you? No, of course you couldn't have any evidence for magic. I said earlier that not knowing the natural explanation for something is not a good reason to invoke magic. Magic is for children. Sane adults should not be pretending magic is real. Also,...more

tgender, whatever. Who cares? I asked for evidence for your supernatural magic. You don't have any evidence for your god's magic, do you? No, of course you couldn't have any evidence for magic. I said earlier that not knowing the natural explanation for something is not a good reason to invoke magic. Magic is for children. Sane adults should not be pretending magic is real.

Also, do you accept the proven fact you're an ape or not? If not, please comment about what I said to Quecat.less

Quecat said "BobCu seems most adamant about harping on some book he read about paternity testing supposedly 'proving' that humans are descended from apes." Quecat, you misunderstood me. I never said paternity testing in humans is evidence for evolution. What I said was the same method used for paternity testing is also used for determining evolutionary relationships, and it ...more

Quecat said "BobCu seems most adamant about harping on some book he read about paternity testing supposedly 'proving' that humans are descended from apes."

Quecat, you misunderstood me. I never said paternity testing in humans is evidence for evolution. What I said was the same method used for paternity testing is also used for determining evolutionary relationships, and it proves beyond any doubt we share a common ancestor with other ape species, and it proves we are an ape species ourselves. You can't use your "common designer" nonsense to explain this evidence, for the same reason you can't use your "common designer" to deny the results of paternity testing.

Now do you understand what I meant?

Creationists accept the results for paternity testing. The courts accept it. Everyone accepts it.

The EXACT SAME METHOD has been used to show beyond any doubt we share common ancestors with the other Great Apes, and it also shows beyond any doubt humans are most closely related to the chimpanzee great apes. Quecat, you're an ape. Get used to it. You should be proud of it. It's a terrible waste of a life to not even know what you are.

Please read my next comments. I will quote an explanation from Carroll's book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution". The same information is available on the internet. Look it up if you're interested. Unfortunately creationists are afraid of educating themselves. If they weren't so terrified of knowledge they wouldn't be creationists.less

tgender: "And if you don't want to back up your claims, then don't make them." If I remember correctly, it was you who was so sure about how the universe began. You said something about your magic man doing it. I asked for evidence for your magic and I'm still waiting. By the way, you're an evolution denier, aren't you? Did you want to talk about the method...more

tgender: "And if you don't want to back up your claims, then don't make them."

If I remember correctly, it was you who was so sure about how the universe began. You said something about your magic man doing it. I asked for evidence for your magic and I'm still waiting.

By the way, you're an evolution denier, aren't you? Did you want to talk about the method used for both paternity testing and determining evolutionary relationships? This is important because it shows the creationists have no reason to deny they are related to chimps. It shows Ben Stein and all other creationists are either liars or they don't know what they're talking about. Any comments? Are you going to study the DNA analysis used for testing both paternity in humans and evolutionary relationships, or are you going to ignore it and hope it goes away?less

tgender, just because I'm not currently interested in cosmology, and just because I don't want to spend time to look up things you could look up yourself, does not mean there isn't strong evidence for the Big Bang. Even if there was no evidence for it, that does not mean god-did-it. If you want to make a big deal of this, then provide scientific evidence (that can be tested) ...more

tgender, just because I'm not currently interested in cosmology, and just because I don't want to spend time to look up things you could look up yourself, does not mean there isn't strong evidence for the Big Bang.

Even if there was no evidence for it, that does not mean god-did-it.

If you want to make a big deal of this, then provide scientific evidence (that can be tested) for your childish supernatural magic.

Since your "Magic Man Done It" is a very fantastic claim, your evidence had better be equally fantastic. Scientists should be able to test your evidence for magic. Your Bible, your wishful thinking, and your ignorance of science, is not evidence for anything.

By the way, this thread is about Ben Stein's ignorance and his lying about biological evolution. It's not about cosmology.less

"Both contain science by people with PhD's" When I talk about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who completely accept the massive evidence for evolution I never talk about their credentials. The creationists, when they talk about their handful of dishonest fake scientists who know nothing about biology, always like to say "They have PhD's!" I'm not im...more

"Both contain science by people with PhD's"

When I talk about the hundreds of thousands of scientists who completely accept the massive evidence for evolution I never talk about their credentials. The creationists, when they talk about their handful of dishonest fake scientists who know nothing about biology, always like to say "They have PhD's!"

I'm not impressed. A liar is no less a liar if he's educated.

I'm still waiting for a creationist to explain what their problem is with this statement I made earlier: "Creationists accept the results of paternity testing so there's no reason they shouldn't accept the results of testing for evolutionary relationships when both use the exact same method."

Come on creationists. Every real scientist in the world laughs at you. Do you like being laughed at by biologists? Do you like being compared to flat-earthers? Do you think you will get a better place in heaven if you constantly spread lies about science?

If you accept the results of paternity testing in humans, you have to accept the results of testing for evolutionary relationships that use the exact same method.

I suggest, before making fools of yourself, read the book by Carroll I recommended earlier. If you don't want to educate yourself, you are just wasting everyone's time.less

Creationists should read the book I recommended earlier. They could also get the same information from the internet, but they need to avoid the Liars for Jesus. What Carroll's book explains is how the same method used for paternity testing in humans is also used to determine evolutionary relationships. For example this method has been used to show beyond any doubt we are most closely relat...more

Creationists should read the book I recommended earlier. They could also get the same information from the internet, but they need to avoid the Liars for Jesus.

What Carroll's book explains is how the same method used for paternity testing in humans is also used to determine evolutionary relationships. For example this method has been used to show beyond any doubt we are most closely related to chimpanzees.

Creationists accept the results of paternity testing so there's no reason they shouldn't accept the results of testing for evolutionary relationships when both use the exact same method.

I said this before earlier, but it's worth repeating. Creationists need to give up. They have lost and they have lost badly.

The good news is they don't have to think about it as losing. They can accept modern science and thank goodness they have not wasted their entire lives denying proven scientific facts like evolution.

Finding out you've been wrong all your life is a good thing. It means you are learning. It means you are smarter than you used to be. I have been wrong about lots of things and I have always been grateful I found out how wrong I was.less