He thinks like a sell-out quisling, and what has he got to show for it? Mono gasping for air, and about to be snuffed because Microsoft is going to give.NET the kick, Gnome in bad shape and development and descending into farce.
I'm glad the useless prick has gone to OS X. Apple deserves his kind.
De Icaza is a rat fink, period. He long ago used up any capital he had in the FOSS community with his dalliances with Microsoft. Frankly, if there was never another/. article involving anything that piece of crap had to say, we would still have about three dozen too many articles out there involving his weasily mutterings.
We do know that while the Neandertals persisted to within 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, the last Neandertals, like the group found on Gibraltar, were marginalized. It seems reasonably likely that pre-modern members of genus Homo in Eurasia never had that high a population, in no small part because wide portions of Eurasia were pretty inhospitable and could not support dense populations. If there was even a small breeding differential between any of these groups and modern Humans, over twenty or thirty thousand years it could have spelled the end, without any special effort. Populations of any organism pushed to the margins of their previous range will usually die out.
Of course, low population density also increases the likelihood that other genus Homo populations in Eurasia could have been subsumed into the H. sapiens groups as they began to spread across the continent, and while there is some debate about interbreeding, if the populations were small enough you could have had interbreeding without showing some large fraction of modern genes coming from these populations. It would be like throwing a couple of gallons of milk in a swimming pool. Yes, there will be some small portion of the volume of the pool that is milk, but not much.
First of all you have to provide a scientific definition of "race". What the Victorians had was anything but a scientific definition. They had no genetic data, no real knowledge of the migration patterns out of Africa. Hell, most of the Victorian racial theorists assumed that humans arose in Eurasia, and that Africa was some sort of dead-beat dead-end where the lower races ended up.
So, get to it. Give us a genetically meaningful definition of "race". I think you will find what most geneticists who have studied the issue have found, that if there are races; or more preferably sub-types of H. sapiens sapiens, they really do not line up very well at all with the morphological divisions that the Europeans set up. We have a much clearer picture now of how things went down when modern humans pushed out of sub-Saharan Africa. Still holes, but enough to tell us that simplistic notions like "negroid", "caucasian" and "mongoloid" do not give anything close to a reasonable picture of genetic patterns.
Genetically there are something like 5 or 6 six races. Five races of sub-Saharan Africans, and then a sixth race everyone else. We know enough about the genetic makeup of various populations to put to rest pretty much all of Victorian racial theory.
The problem here is concentrating on what usually amount to relatively insignificant morphological features of modern H. sapiens. Many features like skin color, shape of the eyes, slight deviations in skull shape, and so on are really very recent changes in modern humans. The fact remains that sub-Saharan Africa holds the highest degree of genetic diversity, and that almost all other populations throughout the rest of the world are far less genetically diverse, and it is this fact that has rendered the morphology obsessions of the Victorians. Not that different non-African populations don't have their unique morphological and heritable differences, but they really are very minor.
If Neandertals and Denisovans did interbreed with humans (and there always seems to be a back-and-forth on this), they didn't leave much in the way of a genetic heritage in modern humans.
...governments have shown more than enough willingness to let their beliefs about criminality override the core ideal of free speech.
I think we need to understand here that the Founding Fathers never intended absolutely unlimited right to express yourself in every possible way. Clearly even the Constitution itself puts at least limitation I can think of right off the top of my head; and that is Treason. You are not free to make contact with an enemy of the United States and start giving them the location of nuclear submarines or the alarm code to the Oval Office (yes, I know stupid examples, but I think you get the point). Clearly where speech is used to cause any form of direct harm (the "shouting fire in crowded theater" test), Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech. The Supreme Court tends to give the First Amendment a good deal of space to breathe, but it can never be unlimited, because if it was libel and slander laws, for instance, would be unconstitutional. I could tell all your neighbors you are a child molester, and you would have no remedy at all.
As with all crimes, one of the issues in finding guilt AND in sentencing is intent. While uttering threats should be illegal, whether or not a charge is even brought or the extent of the penalty if found guilty is dependent on the context and intent.
As opposed to the guy who invented transparent aluminum, and ended up floating face down in the swimming pool of his sprawling Bel Air mansion, a pound of cocaine on the patio table, fourth wife, a 21 year old named Bunny passed out in the living room after a two-day long crystal meth binge and a couple of beach bums living in the guest house and using the hot tub to wash their clothes. Poor bastard couldn't deal with success and in his last months was heard blaming his out of control irritable bowel syndrome and his wife's predilection for cheating on him with the entire male staff of a nearby Starbucks on some crazy Scotsman who had given him the secret formula for transparent aluminum, talked into computer mice and consulted some grizzled-looking weirdo about the effects of time travel.
Anything that might convince the next generation of voters that space is cool gets my vote. If having a Mohawk and being "hip" or whatever does the trick, then so be it.
You sound like one of those guys that was all pissed off that it took Harry Potter to get kids reading again, instead of "real literature".
Which goes to show you that your grandmother probably should be in a retirement home spending her last demented years try to stick nurses with knitting needles.
Tried only briefly to work with Drupal, found it very complex. Moved to Joomla, which despite some serious documentation holes, was marginally easier. Doing my second big project in writing a Joomla component and naturally it is a bit easier, so I've probably already compromised myself as far as using Drupal.
What I have to say in both cases is by and large the documentation sucks, the examples not going much beyond Hello World, the default plugins breaking so many of the "rules" that they cease to be all that useful, and you end up having to sort it out for yourself anyways. Frankly, I hate CMSs, but that's the way the world is going, so vive la PHP crapfest.
If you espouse such moronic claims as that, expect to be ridiculed. You have a right to express your opinion, you have no right to have your opinion automatically modded up. People with stupid ideas are mocked.
EVERYTHING THAT SEPERATES US FROM TREE CLIMBING OLD-WORLD MONKEYS HAD TO HAPPEN AT NEARLY THE EXACT SAME TIME.
Could you point exactly where in the literature that any researcher on hominid or hominoid evolution makes this claim. You are aware that bipedalism and the ability to climb trees are not mutually exclusive.
Again, all you're demonstrating is your ignorance and your ability to construct strawmen of evolution. I cannot imagine that you ever read a book on hominid evolution to be able to make moronic statements like the one above. It's so idiotic that it's not even wrong.
But, as Richard Dawkins so ably pointed out to the standard Creationist complaint against the evolution of an eye that half an eye is of no use, that in fact, if you look at the range of eyes in nature (everything from photo-sensitive patches on primitive animals to the complex eyes of the octopus to the vertebrate eye), that in fact half an eye is better than no eye at all.
And I'd question the "radical changes" claim. Morphologically, we are not all that different from the other great apes. In fact, it's a real problem in that we are not, even after four million years, fully adapted to bipedal locomotion, and thus back and joint problems are so prevalent among humans. Our spines, knees and ankles are only partially evolved towards bipedal motion, so it would appear that your basic claim that all features have to be present in complete form to be useful is, even in the very example of H. sapiens, utterly and completely wrong.
Here's my tip, my friend. You are ignorant. You don't understand evolution, in general or in specific lineages. Get educated, because what you write is silly, uninformed and does you no credit at all.
The way it has been described to me is that science only deals in truth in a provisional fashion; that is, all theories are open to modification based upon new data. That being said, theories like biological evolution and quantum mechanics are so well supported by so many different streams of evidence that one cannot imagine them being outright rejected. They may be incomplete, or may ultimately become subsumed into a larger theory (as Newtonian Mechanics was subsumed into General Relativity as a special non-relativistic extrapolation), but they explain so many observations that it is hard to imagine any body of evidence ever outright falsifying them.
So I suppose I overspeak when I say "science does not deal in truth", but there is a telling saying among scientists that "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol". Scientists are very wary to speak in terms of "truth" or "proof".
It is the same thing. We do not possess every single transition between Proto-Germanic and Modern English. In fact, we know almost nothing about West Germanic, which is the direct antecedent of Anglo-Saxon. But because there are traces of the ancestral languages in ones we can read, we thus have the ability not only to state that English, German, Dutch, Swedish and a whole host of languages descended from proto-Germanic, we can even go so far as to do tentative reconstructions.
The same goes for the fossil record. You do not need a complete fossil record to lay out a map of how you start at a common ancestor and arrive at its descendants. These trees were being assembled a century ago, and are still assembled today. But fortunately we no longer rely just on fossils, we can also use the molecular data, which in the large degree confirms the fossil data. In other words, we have two independent lines of evidence which fit together well; the twin-nested hierarchy. And the fossil record is nowhere near as sparse as you would make out, and like a language family, you can find at least some hints of ancestral languages simply by looking at the features of a large number of descendants.
They've done a tentative reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, even though it was spoken at least two or three thousand years before anyone started writing its descendant languages down. In the same fashion, we can do tentative reconstructions of common ancestors based upon fossil records AND the molecular data.
I will repeat. You do not need perfect data to reconstruct an evolutionary event, any more than you need to know the position of a bullet at every millisecond from the barrel of the gun to the victim's head to reconstruct a trajectory. Yes, evolution, biological and linguistic, actually follows rules.
But it appears to me that even accepting your classification, it's worthless. Even Linnaeus's system inherently recognized relationships between presumably distant ancestors. How do chordates hang out in the "kind" system. How do you separate birds from dinosaurs, fish from amphibians? Because you've constructed a completely self serving system that doesn't actually classify anything save in a fashion that meets some bizarre literal reading of Genesis, you create a system of no utility whatsoever.
If I look at the genome of two species and see that they hold about 98% common in genes, and not only that, despite some chromosomal differences, it appears that the loci of most of the genes can be mapped one to the other, how does that fit into "kinds"? You can reject common descent and the twin-nested hierarchy if you like, but at least it makes solid predictions which we can then go test. "Kinds" is little better than a child's form of classification, if that. I think even the Greeks had better classification systems than you put forward here. Do you realize how embarrassed you should be?
Explain them some other way. Do you think God inserts ERVs at specific points in animals already seen to be closely related by phylogeny just to test faith?
And as to your last paragraph, I guess even you know how weak your argument is, so it's time to trot out epistemological nihilism. I dunno, can you be absolute sure that I don't exist and you're just debating with yourself? You see where that kind of ludicrous thinking leads, to the denial that any knowledge can be reliably determined.
At any rate, kids should be taught to science in class, even if they're going to become tax attorneys and never use it again, just as they should be taught accurate history (as accurate as we can determine at that time), even if they're destined to be beautician. To argue against teaching knowledge because its application may not be obvious, or applicable to everyone, is a backwards way of trying to justify teaching things that are known to be wrong in any given field.
But they are not the same. They are a different species. You have seen the genetic variability between two related populations diverge sufficiently for a new species to arrive. That is evolution in a nutshell. You're just using the tired old Creationist line about "kinds", but Creationists have become slightly more clever and don't choose to use their old claims without masking them.
But go on, here's a challenge for you. I want you to explain common ERVs in the same locales in the genome between humans and the other great apes in any other way but because the original insertion was in a common ancestor. Get to it, can't wait to see what you come up with,.
You realize that there are probably no more than a handful of biologists in the last fifty years that reject evolution, so I'm thinking here you haven't read very much at all from biologists against evolution.
At any rate, in the scientific language, macro-evolution refers to speciation and higher, so you're attempt to claim problems by word redefinition pretty much pins you to the wall.
What would you call the molecular evidence for humans and the other apes having a common ancestor, including ERVs, anything but evidence for macroevolution? Or does this simply go beyond you trying to prove evolution false by rhetorical games, and lean more on you just reject evidence that you don't like.
Go for it, Mr. Expert. I want you to explain ERVs common to great apes and humans in any other terms than common descent of those lineages.
Hey, by your reasoning I could build an engine without the crank because i didn't know what it was for and it would still run....try again
How is that arrived at by my reasoning?
I say we teach both and let the children make informed decisions on it later as to what they believe. Evolution is to sporadic for me to accept it as anything more than a funny Idea, to me it equates to putting all the ingredients for spaghetti into a bag and shaking it around, plating it, and saying "look spaghetti!" without cooking it. You cannot make something without first knowing all of the ingredients. I Personally like Tesla's stance on the issue...
I say we teach kids science as we understand it, with enough underpinnings as to the methods involved to at least give some understanding as to how to biologists have arrived at that point. There are not enough hours in the day to teach children in the way you demand, and what's more, there need not be, any more than having to go through every single medieval source to show Charlemagne existed is required to teach about the Carolingians or having to provide the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern Dutch is required to teach that Modern Dutch is descended from the proto-Germanic mother tongue.
What you're really trying to argue for is teaching the controversy, but you don't want to come out and say it. Your motives are highly suspect, but, if you want to prove me wrong, then tell me why it isn't required to teach the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from proto-Semitic to Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew to be able to state that Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew are related languages that descended from a common ancestral language.
But that is exactly what speciation is. You, or rather the liars at AIG, have created a private definition. Inventing private definitions to win debates is a form of dishonesty, in my view.
Have you ever pondered actually reading a book on evolution by a biologist. You know, sort of like how you would consult a dentist on dentistry rather than, say, a witch doctor?
Slashdot Mirror
He thinks like a sell-out quisling, and what has he got to show for it? Mono gasping for air, and about to be snuffed because Microsoft is going to give .NET the kick, Gnome in bad shape and development and descending into farce.
I'm glad the useless prick has gone to OS X. Apple deserves his kind.
WTF are you talking about? The most prevalent desktop remains Windows. OS X is a bit player just like Linux.
De Icaza is a rat fink, period. He long ago used up any capital he had in the FOSS community with his dalliances with Microsoft. Frankly, if there was never another /. article involving anything that piece of crap had to say, we would still have about three dozen too many articles out there involving his weasily mutterings.
We do know that while the Neandertals persisted to within 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, the last Neandertals, like the group found on Gibraltar, were marginalized. It seems reasonably likely that pre-modern members of genus Homo in Eurasia never had that high a population, in no small part because wide portions of Eurasia were pretty inhospitable and could not support dense populations. If there was even a small breeding differential between any of these groups and modern Humans, over twenty or thirty thousand years it could have spelled the end, without any special effort. Populations of any organism pushed to the margins of their previous range will usually die out.
Of course, low population density also increases the likelihood that other genus Homo populations in Eurasia could have been subsumed into the H. sapiens groups as they began to spread across the continent, and while there is some debate about interbreeding, if the populations were small enough you could have had interbreeding without showing some large fraction of modern genes coming from these populations. It would be like throwing a couple of gallons of milk in a swimming pool. Yes, there will be some small portion of the volume of the pool that is milk, but not much.
First of all you have to provide a scientific definition of "race". What the Victorians had was anything but a scientific definition. They had no genetic data, no real knowledge of the migration patterns out of Africa. Hell, most of the Victorian racial theorists assumed that humans arose in Eurasia, and that Africa was some sort of dead-beat dead-end where the lower races ended up.
So, get to it. Give us a genetically meaningful definition of "race". I think you will find what most geneticists who have studied the issue have found, that if there are races; or more preferably sub-types of H. sapiens sapiens, they really do not line up very well at all with the morphological divisions that the Europeans set up. We have a much clearer picture now of how things went down when modern humans pushed out of sub-Saharan Africa. Still holes, but enough to tell us that simplistic notions like "negroid", "caucasian" and "mongoloid" do not give anything close to a reasonable picture of genetic patterns.
Genetically there are something like 5 or 6 six races. Five races of sub-Saharan Africans, and then a sixth race everyone else. We know enough about the genetic makeup of various populations to put to rest pretty much all of Victorian racial theory.
The problem here is concentrating on what usually amount to relatively insignificant morphological features of modern H. sapiens. Many features like skin color, shape of the eyes, slight deviations in skull shape, and so on are really very recent changes in modern humans. The fact remains that sub-Saharan Africa holds the highest degree of genetic diversity, and that almost all other populations throughout the rest of the world are far less genetically diverse, and it is this fact that has rendered the morphology obsessions of the Victorians. Not that different non-African populations don't have their unique morphological and heritable differences, but they really are very minor.
If Neandertals and Denisovans did interbreed with humans (and there always seems to be a back-and-forth on this), they didn't leave much in the way of a genetic heritage in modern humans.
I think we need to understand here that the Founding Fathers never intended absolutely unlimited right to express yourself in every possible way. Clearly even the Constitution itself puts at least limitation I can think of right off the top of my head; and that is Treason. You are not free to make contact with an enemy of the United States and start giving them the location of nuclear submarines or the alarm code to the Oval Office (yes, I know stupid examples, but I think you get the point). Clearly where speech is used to cause any form of direct harm (the "shouting fire in crowded theater" test), Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech. The Supreme Court tends to give the First Amendment a good deal of space to breathe, but it can never be unlimited, because if it was libel and slander laws, for instance, would be unconstitutional. I could tell all your neighbors you are a child molester, and you would have no remedy at all.
As with all crimes, one of the issues in finding guilt AND in sentencing is intent. While uttering threats should be illegal, whether or not a charge is even brought or the extent of the penalty if found guilty is dependent on the context and intent.
As opposed to the guy who invented transparent aluminum, and ended up floating face down in the swimming pool of his sprawling Bel Air mansion, a pound of cocaine on the patio table, fourth wife, a 21 year old named Bunny passed out in the living room after a two-day long crystal meth binge and a couple of beach bums living in the guest house and using the hot tub to wash their clothes. Poor bastard couldn't deal with success and in his last months was heard blaming his out of control irritable bowel syndrome and his wife's predilection for cheating on him with the entire male staff of a nearby Starbucks on some crazy Scotsman who had given him the secret formula for transparent aluminum, talked into computer mice and consulted some grizzled-looking weirdo about the effects of time travel.
Anything that might convince the next generation of voters that space is cool gets my vote. If having a Mohawk and being "hip" or whatever does the trick, then so be it.
You sound like one of those guys that was all pissed off that it took Harry Potter to get kids reading again, instead of "real literature".
Which goes to show you that your grandmother probably should be in a retirement home spending her last demented years try to stick nurses with knitting needles.
Tried only briefly to work with Drupal, found it very complex. Moved to Joomla, which despite some serious documentation holes, was marginally easier. Doing my second big project in writing a Joomla component and naturally it is a bit easier, so I've probably already compromised myself as far as using Drupal.
What I have to say in both cases is by and large the documentation sucks, the examples not going much beyond Hello World, the default plugins breaking so many of the "rules" that they cease to be all that useful, and you end up having to sort it out for yourself anyways. Frankly, I hate CMSs, but that's the way the world is going, so vive la PHP crapfest.
If you espouse such moronic claims as that, expect to be ridiculed. You have a right to express your opinion, you have no right to have your opinion automatically modded up. People with stupid ideas are mocked.
Could you point exactly where in the literature that any researcher on hominid or hominoid evolution makes this claim. You are aware that bipedalism and the ability to climb trees are not mutually exclusive.
Again, all you're demonstrating is your ignorance and your ability to construct strawmen of evolution. I cannot imagine that you ever read a book on hominid evolution to be able to make moronic statements like the one above. It's so idiotic that it's not even wrong.
But, as Richard Dawkins so ably pointed out to the standard Creationist complaint against the evolution of an eye that half an eye is of no use, that in fact, if you look at the range of eyes in nature (everything from photo-sensitive patches on primitive animals to the complex eyes of the octopus to the vertebrate eye), that in fact half an eye is better than no eye at all.
And I'd question the "radical changes" claim. Morphologically, we are not all that different from the other great apes. In fact, it's a real problem in that we are not, even after four million years, fully adapted to bipedal locomotion, and thus back and joint problems are so prevalent among humans. Our spines, knees and ankles are only partially evolved towards bipedal motion, so it would appear that your basic claim that all features have to be present in complete form to be useful is, even in the very example of H. sapiens, utterly and completely wrong.
Here's my tip, my friend. You are ignorant. You don't understand evolution, in general or in specific lineages. Get educated, because what you write is silly, uninformed and does you no credit at all.
The way it has been described to me is that science only deals in truth in a provisional fashion; that is, all theories are open to modification based upon new data. That being said, theories like biological evolution and quantum mechanics are so well supported by so many different streams of evidence that one cannot imagine them being outright rejected. They may be incomplete, or may ultimately become subsumed into a larger theory (as Newtonian Mechanics was subsumed into General Relativity as a special non-relativistic extrapolation), but they explain so many observations that it is hard to imagine any body of evidence ever outright falsifying them.
So I suppose I overspeak when I say "science does not deal in truth", but there is a telling saying among scientists that "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol". Scientists are very wary to speak in terms of "truth" or "proof".
Is there some evidence that Muslim and Christian men are less promiscuous? I would be very surprised to learn if that were true.
It is the same thing. We do not possess every single transition between Proto-Germanic and Modern English. In fact, we know almost nothing about West Germanic, which is the direct antecedent of Anglo-Saxon. But because there are traces of the ancestral languages in ones we can read, we thus have the ability not only to state that English, German, Dutch, Swedish and a whole host of languages descended from proto-Germanic, we can even go so far as to do tentative reconstructions.
The same goes for the fossil record. You do not need a complete fossil record to lay out a map of how you start at a common ancestor and arrive at its descendants. These trees were being assembled a century ago, and are still assembled today. But fortunately we no longer rely just on fossils, we can also use the molecular data, which in the large degree confirms the fossil data. In other words, we have two independent lines of evidence which fit together well; the twin-nested hierarchy. And the fossil record is nowhere near as sparse as you would make out, and like a language family, you can find at least some hints of ancestral languages simply by looking at the features of a large number of descendants.
They've done a tentative reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, even though it was spoken at least two or three thousand years before anyone started writing its descendant languages down. In the same fashion, we can do tentative reconstructions of common ancestors based upon fossil records AND the molecular data.
I will repeat. You do not need perfect data to reconstruct an evolutionary event, any more than you need to know the position of a bullet at every millisecond from the barrel of the gun to the victim's head to reconstruct a trajectory. Yes, evolution, biological and linguistic, actually follows rules.
I have yet to meet anyone who didn't know that the Sun is a star, and that the stars are in turn suns.
So humans are apes, right? Part of "ape kind".
But it appears to me that even accepting your classification, it's worthless. Even Linnaeus's system inherently recognized relationships between presumably distant ancestors. How do chordates hang out in the "kind" system. How do you separate birds from dinosaurs, fish from amphibians? Because you've constructed a completely self serving system that doesn't actually classify anything save in a fashion that meets some bizarre literal reading of Genesis, you create a system of no utility whatsoever.
If I look at the genome of two species and see that they hold about 98% common in genes, and not only that, despite some chromosomal differences, it appears that the loci of most of the genes can be mapped one to the other, how does that fit into "kinds"? You can reject common descent and the twin-nested hierarchy if you like, but at least it makes solid predictions which we can then go test. "Kinds" is little better than a child's form of classification, if that. I think even the Greeks had better classification systems than you put forward here. Do you realize how embarrassed you should be?
Running to an anti-evolution site to handwave away evidence. Shocking.
Okay, specific examples:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001026
Explain them some other way. Do you think God inserts ERVs at specific points in animals already seen to be closely related by phylogeny just to test faith?
And as to your last paragraph, I guess even you know how weak your argument is, so it's time to trot out epistemological nihilism. I dunno, can you be absolute sure that I don't exist and you're just debating with yourself? You see where that kind of ludicrous thinking leads, to the denial that any knowledge can be reliably determined.
At any rate, kids should be taught to science in class, even if they're going to become tax attorneys and never use it again, just as they should be taught accurate history (as accurate as we can determine at that time), even if they're destined to be beautician. To argue against teaching knowledge because its application may not be obvious, or applicable to everyone, is a backwards way of trying to justify teaching things that are known to be wrong in any given field.
But they are not the same. They are a different species. You have seen the genetic variability between two related populations diverge sufficiently for a new species to arrive. That is evolution in a nutshell. You're just using the tired old Creationist line about "kinds", but Creationists have become slightly more clever and don't choose to use their old claims without masking them.
But go on, here's a challenge for you. I want you to explain common ERVs in the same locales in the genome between humans and the other great apes in any other way but because the original insertion was in a common ancestor. Get to it, can't wait to see what you come up with,.
You realize that there are probably no more than a handful of biologists in the last fifty years that reject evolution, so I'm thinking here you haven't read very much at all from biologists against evolution.
At any rate, in the scientific language, macro-evolution refers to speciation and higher, so you're attempt to claim problems by word redefinition pretty much pins you to the wall.
What would you call the molecular evidence for humans and the other apes having a common ancestor, including ERVs, anything but evidence for macroevolution? Or does this simply go beyond you trying to prove evolution false by rhetorical games, and lean more on you just reject evidence that you don't like.
Go for it, Mr. Expert. I want you to explain ERVs common to great apes and humans in any other terms than common descent of those lineages.
And is there any reason you can think of why any of this should be taught in a science class?
How is that arrived at by my reasoning?
I say we teach kids science as we understand it, with enough underpinnings as to the methods involved to at least give some understanding as to how to biologists have arrived at that point. There are not enough hours in the day to teach children in the way you demand, and what's more, there need not be, any more than having to go through every single medieval source to show Charlemagne existed is required to teach about the Carolingians or having to provide the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from Proto-Germanic to Modern Dutch is required to teach that Modern Dutch is descended from the proto-Germanic mother tongue.
What you're really trying to argue for is teaching the controversy, but you don't want to come out and say it. Your motives are highly suspect, but, if you want to prove me wrong, then tell me why it isn't required to teach the syntax and vocabulary of every generation of spoken language from proto-Semitic to Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew to be able to state that Modern Arabic and Modern Hebrew are related languages that descended from a common ancestral language.
But that is exactly what speciation is. You, or rather the liars at AIG, have created a private definition. Inventing private definitions to win debates is a form of dishonesty, in my view.
Have you ever pondered actually reading a book on evolution by a biologist. You know, sort of like how you would consult a dentist on dentistry rather than, say, a witch doctor?