iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

me @marcuspope.com · 29/08/2025

As of 2024, 37% of Americans think God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years. news.gallup.com/poll/647594/...

Americans' Beliefs About Human Origins, 1982-2024

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

Line chart showing percentages of Americans overall who, from 1982 to 2024, believe God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, or human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life with God's guidance, or human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life but God had no part in the process. In a May 1-23, 2024, Gallup poll, 37% say God created humans in present form, 34% say humans developed with God's guidance and 24% say humans developed without God's intervention. The % saying developed without God is the highest in the trend, higher than the 22% saying this in 2019 and figures mostly in the low double digits from 1993 to 2006. Since 2014, at least 19% have held this view. The "God guided" view has shown little change over time, fluctuating almost exclusively in the 30% range during the trend, with a high reading of 40% in 1999 and a low of 31% in 2014. The "created in present form" view has also varied within a relatively narrow, 10-point range, from 47% in 1993 and 1999 to the current 37%, the low reading for the trend.
% God created humans in present form% Humans developed, God guided% Humans developed without God

130

me @marcuspope.com · 11/08/2025

Damn you are dumb. You are telling us *all* humans are male or female just because our _species_ is gonochoric. That’s equivalent to saying everyone must have two legs because our species is bipedal. And yet, some people have both sexes, just like some people are born with only one leg.

100

me @marcuspope.com · 11/08/2025

And, again, what does the development towards ovaries and testes result in? How do you determine the dominant sex if neither produce gametes? You are slow rolling this answer like a toddler dragging their feet to a nap.

000

me @marcuspope.com · 11/08/2025

And what do those pathways consist of?

000

me @marcuspope.com · 11/08/2025

You mean that previous post where you ignored reality and tried to change the subject because you realized you lost the argument?? Oh I remember that, it made you look like a complete idiot. 🤷‍♂️

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

The bipedal nature of humans is an evolved reality. It just is. There’s no way around that. - You, trying to justify that congenital amputeeism doesn’t exist. 🤣

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

That’s not an answer to the question. You can’t answer it, so you gave an example of something else that also doesn’t answer it. 🤣

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

You replaced the word sex with pathway. And then you didn’t explain what materially defines the pathways, just like you didn’t with sex. We know it’s because you can’t.

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

But again, if you are stating you have to be able to produce eggs and sperm, well then a lot of people are not even male or female. But you know that’s not the requirement. And you now know people have both ovaries and testes. And in rare cases they can produce both sperm and eggs.

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

Yes, see the links I’ve been adding to my posts take you to websites on something we call “the internet”. And the internet has documents, in this case from scientifically peer-reviewed medical journals. And the link I sent, confirms there are people who produce both.

100

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

It’s an analogy designed to help you understand a very basic concept. You think a third category cannot emerge from binary inputs, and yet it clearly can. Mixing pathways is a third category. Just like a person with heterochromia goes in a unique eye-color group from the homochromia ones.

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

What sex would you say this person is? www.fertstert.org/article/S001...

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

Yes, we get a little device, kinda like a dimmer switch for lights but it determines sex. 🤦‍♂️ When not geno/phenotypically concordant they are typically assigned intersex. If the person identifies as a given sex, we accept that - even when it’s opposite of their physiology.

100

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

They are, I’ve provided multiple forms of evidence to support them. Your reply has been “nuh uh” - something someone resorts to when they know they don’t have a good response and have lost the argument.

010

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

Or perhaps peer-reviewed medical journals meet the litmus of credibility you need to acknowledge reality. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

000

me @marcuspope.com · 10/08/2025

Yeah, they do. www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agric...

100