Demint says pregnant unwed mothers and homosexuals should not be teachers

[John Dibble]

I'm glad I don't live in the South.

You probably didn't hear about this, but Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox wanted to strike the word 'evolution' out of the state curriculum(this idea didn't last after everyone with a brain said 'WTF? You're crazy, woman!').

[John Dibble]

I'm glad I don't live in the South.

You probably didn't hear about this, but Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox wanted to strike the word 'evolution' out of the state curriculum(this idea didn't last after everyone with a brain said 'WTF? You're crazy, woman!').

Lets see.. everyone with a brain?  What percentage of the electorate is that?

Even morons can scrap together some common sense sometimes.

[John Dibble]

I think that more, not less, should be taught about evolution

Such as the fact that it's been proven false

How so? Evolution hasn't been proven outright false or true as far as I know.

[John Dibble]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It has been proven neither wrong or right.

Of course not, scientific theories can never be "proven" true.

The theory of evolution is more than just a "theory." The word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation.

Evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact; the earth's structures have changed and its life forms have evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field.

I personally believe in theistic evolution.

First off, scientific theories can be proven true, as well as false - they are basically hypothesis after all.

Evolution has been proven true in some points, but not others. For instance, we're still not completely sure if we all evolved from single celled organisms. The two biggest factors in evolution are survival of the fittest and mutation. Those with the best traits will survive and breed, while those that have bad traits will die out. Sometimes species can breed into seperate species, and eventually become incompatible with eachother(which mutation may play a role in). Mutation is usually harmless and does nothing, though it can be bad(bad mutations don't normally spread because of survival of the fittest) and some can actually be beneficial. Over time a group can get enough mutations to become a new species in itself. Still, not all aspects of evolution have been proven true, though many have. Also, evolutionary theory does not discount the idea that evolution, creation of matter, or creation of original life is not the result of some higher force like a deity - it is only a theory on the mechanics.

One thing about some Creationists I find funny is that they believe we came from a single pair of humans(Adam and Eve). This is a ludicrous concept if you ask me, unless genetics somehow didn't apply back then, because a single pair of complex organisms like humans can't really do that - their offspring would be forced to inbreed, and their offspring's offspring would inbreed, causing genetic defects out the wazoo. At least that's my opinion on the matter.

[John Dibble]

Don't a lot of scientists believe that all humans were born from a single female?

I've never heard that outside of creationist circles. In order for that to be true there would have had to have been many males mating with that one female, otherwise there would have been worse inbreeding problems. Now, what could be much more realistically supposed is that one female, of the species before humanity, was the first to have a specific mutated gene and gave birth to multiple offspring with that mutated gene, and those offspring mated, spreading the gene, and their offspring did the same, and so forth, because one or two mutations would not necessarily make those with the new gene incompatible with the others of their species without the gene. Humanity likely evolved from both survival of the fittest and mutation, as most species would have.

[John Dibble]

Don't a lot of scientists believe that all humans were born from a single female?

I've never heard that outside of creationist circles. In order for that to be true there would have had to have been many males mating with that one female, otherwise there would have been worse inbreeding problems. Now, what could be much more realistically supposed is that one female, of the species before humanity, was the first to have a specific mutated gene and gave birth to multiple offspring with that mutated gene, and those offspring mated, spreading the gene, and their offspring did the same, and so forth, because one or two mutations would not necessarily make those with the new gene incompatible with the others of their species without the gene. Humanity likely evolved from both survival of the fittest and mutation, as most species would have.

Mitochondrial DNA, which naturally enough, is found in the mitochodria and not the nucleus, is inherited only from the mother.  Based on studies of MDNA variation it has been estimated that all humans living today can trace their origin to a single female living appoximately 600,000 years ago.  That isn't to say that all other females living at that time don't have living descendants, merely that this hypothetical female is everyone's great^n[-grandmother.

Ah, I remember that theory. Thinking on it, I know that scientific studies are not always valid - I don't think these studies have any conclusive proof one way or the other. Also, it is likely that humanity was originally a very small group - so some inbreeding was bound to happen to an extent. One female might be possible, but one male is definitely out - there would have to be multiple compatible humanoids to breed with, otherwise the inbreeding problem would be a bit too big.

[John Dibble]

Don't ''ban'' either, but I think that schools should make it so that the homosexual can't reveal thier sexual orientation to the students. It's too disruptive and can only lead to problems.

Didn't really disrupt the class when the issue was raised in my high school health class. Someone heard the teacher was a lesbian and asked - to paraphrase her response 'Yeah, so what?' and she moved on with the lesson. Disruptions in the classroom of most natures, including this type, are handled on an individual basis by teachers - if a teacher can't stop this kind of disruption how can he/she stop the more everyday kind? People have a tendency to blow this out of proportion if you ask me. Though I would agree that teachers shouldn't go out of their way to bring up the subject(even if they are straight, it's not what the classroom is for).