Human Evolution Q&A

[sayak83]

I am currently reading up a lot of resources on human evolution. The current scientific evidence points to

1) A divergence between ancestral chimpanzee line and ancestral human like around 6 million years.
2) Increasing adaptation to bipedal locomotion and open woodlands. Multiple species with several bipedal strategies present all over africa (upto 2.5 million years)
3) Beginning of tool use and brain size increase from 2.5 mya. Subsequent adaptation to open savanna
4) Spread out of africa (1.7 mya appx.) and colonization of Europe and Asia
5) Multiple species evolve everywhere
6) Archaic modern humans rise in Africa (200,000 yrs) and spread out to Europe and Asia with limited crossbreeding with other local species.
7) Development of culture around 80,000 and rapid growth after 40,000.

Would like to know about your views on the scientific discourse on human evolution.

[Ozgirl]

I do not have opinions. Evolution is science. Whether you believe it or not is entirely upto you. I have presented justifications for my belief that the science of evolution is true, you have done the opposite. I believe my justifications are more valid than yours, and you believe otherwise. Once the evidence is laid out, its upto each of us to decide what to believe as true and take responsibility for that belief.

However you should retract your claim that I got 5 out of my 7 points wrong.

No you actually did get them wrong. 5 were way out of date.

Evos that struggle when they are clearly outdated is a drag.

If there is research that gives more that one answer or changes to be flavour of the month then put simply you cannot answer anyones questions. What you can do is face off one opinion against another and hope it does not change mid debate. That is evolutionary science.

Would you care back up that claim with documented scientific sources, ?? I mean, slning around insults and claims come easy.. backing them up seems to be 'a drag'

This is boring and the likes of you is why I have have had days off and will likely have more.

They are not insults. They are facts and every point I have made has been backed via a link to evo research. Here is a novel idea. Why don't you read them and learn instead of remaining ignorant.

I have said many things on this and many threads. What in particular would you like to show your ignorance around? How about over 150 years of linking human wrist bones to knuckle walking ancestry overturned on the back of one fossil find in Ardi?


How about my suggestion that indeed the theory of human evolution is not much older than 12 years on the back of Ardi. How about my suggestion that if up until then all these apes showed chimp similarities they are more likely to be chimp ancestors than human ancestors, particularly given you have zilch evidence to support one entire half of the split, meaning you evos have stuff all to present for chimp ancestry?

How about this? Do you doubt that there is an 80% difference in protien expession?

A recent study has proposed that 80% of the proteins between chimps and humans are different that leads to a considerable morphological difference between the two species (Galina et al., 2005).

http://www.academicjournals.org/jbsa/PD ... t%20al.pdf

Do you doubt there is over a 30% difference in the Y chromosomes? Do you doubt there is algorithmic magic that does not clade chimps with humans? Do you doubt that the chimp genome is 10% larger than a human, the surface structure is different, the myth of 1% etc etc? Do you doubt that I believe that evolutionary researchers have no idea how to quantify genomic comparisons because the differences in insertions, huge genomic regions missing, inversions, recombinations render the genome unquantifiable.

Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing
DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of
chromosomes confound any quantification of humanness versus chimpness. There isnt one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms, Gagneux adds.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biolo ... s/1836.pdf

You tell me what you are ignorant of from that which I have refered to, and I will enlighten you.

[Peter]

This is boring and the likes of you is why I have have had days off and will likely have more.
You tell me what you are ignorant of from that which I have refered to, and I will enlighten you.

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

[Ozgirl]

This is boring and the likes of you is why I have have had days off and will likely have more.
You tell me what you are ignorant of from that which I have refered to, and I will enlighten you.

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

That is not the thread topic and will spoof the thread.

In brief, Genesis is my creationist paradigm. The Genesis account has been published by way of the bible, placed life beginning with plants, then animal creatures of the sea and ending in mankind, before any evolutionist thought of it, is verifiable and falsifiable unlike TOE and the unstable and changing scenarios that support it, the 'how' of the coalescence is no more ellusive than evos abiogenesis conveniently split away from the evo/creo paradigm, and can't be worse than the instability you have to offer.

This is not the thread topic and we would be spamming the thread to go much further.

The point I want to make before leaving this thread is that indeed any answer given to any question around human evolution, or any organisms evolution, can only be vague, is usually contested, and is no more than flavour of the month.

[Goat]

I do not have opinions. Evolution is science. Whether you believe it or not is entirely upto you. I have presented justifications for my belief that the science of evolution is true, you have done the opposite. I believe my justifications are more valid than yours, and you believe otherwise. Once the evidence is laid out, its upto each of us to decide what to believe as true and take responsibility for that belief.

However you should retract your claim that I got 5 out of my 7 points wrong.

No you actually did get them wrong. 5 were way out of date.

Evos that struggle when they are clearly outdated is a drag.

If there is research that gives more that one answer or changes to be flavour of the month then put simply you cannot answer anyones questions. What you can do is face off one opinion against another and hope it does not change mid debate. That is evolutionary science.

Would you care back up that claim with documented scientific sources, ?? I mean, slning around insults and claims come easy.. backing them up seems to be 'a drag'

This is boring and the likes of you is why I have have had days off and will likely have more.

Well then, what you can do , is discuss the relevant items in context .. and show that you have at least a modicum of understanding. The out of context quotes, and pointing to articles that are not relevant to the topic, or are totally misrepresented is not showing understanding. neither is argument by hyperbole.

When you make a claim about what the TOE says, and it is entirely at 180% difference in understanding of biologists, it ruins the credibility of the argument.

They are not insults. They are facts and every point I have made has been backed via a link to evo research. Here is a novel idea. Why don't you read them and learn instead of remaining ignorant.

No, they are not 'facts', They are your opinion based on misrepresentations. Would you please stop with the hyperbole, and actually show an understanding of the articles.

I have said many things on this and many threads. What in particular would you like to show your ignorance around? How about over 150 years of linking human wrist bones to knuckle walking ancestry overturned on the back of one fossil find in Ardi?

And the problem with that is??? That is how science works... when data shows an idea is wrong, then that idea is overturned. Ardi showed that bipedalism developed early than expected, Lucy did the same thing. Knowledge is not cast in stone.. unlike the 15.. oops, I mean 10 commandments.

[Peter]

This is boring and the likes of you is why I have have had days off and will likely have more.
You tell me what you are ignorant of from that which I have refered to, and I will enlighten you.

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

That is not the thread topic and will spoof the thread.

You seem to have great criticism for the theory of evolution but when I ask you for your theory of creation in a thread about human evolution it will "spoof the thread?" Convenient that...

In brief, Genesis is my creationist paradigm. The Genesis account has been published by way of the bible, placed life beginning with plants, then animal creatures of the sea and ending in mankind, before any evolutionist thought of it, is verifiable and falsifiable unlike TOE and the unstable and changing scenarios that support it, the 'how' of the coalescence is no more ellusive than evos abiogenesis conveniently split away from the evo/creo paradigm, and can't be worse than the instability you have to offer.

It's true that the theory of evolution is always looking to improve based on the evidence. If you feel uncomfortable with the scientific method and need a theory locked in stone then stick with the theory of creation. What was that theory again?

This is not the thread topic and we would be spamming the thread to go much further.

Ah yes, so you said.

The point I want to make before leaving this thread is that indeed any answer given to any question around human evolution, or any organisms evolution, can only be vague, is usually contested, and is no more than flavour of the month.

Welcome to the scientific method.

[Neandertal Ned]

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

Can you give us an explanation of how an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors that entails a little more detail than by natural selection or 'evolution is a fact?"

You seem to have great criticism for the theory of evolution but when I ask you for your theory of creation in a thread about human evolution it will "spoof the thread?" Convenient that...

How would a theory of creation help you understand the Darwinist claim that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

It's true that the theory of evolution is always looking to improve based on the evidence. If you feel uncomfortable with the scientific method and need a theory locked in stone then stick with the theory of creation. What was that theory again?

If there is no theory of creation does that mean we are stuck with Darwin's racist fantasy of an African species of humans originating from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

Welcome to the scientific method.

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism and his racist fantasy that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman apes or their ancestors once upon a time in Africa.

[Peter]

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

Can you give us an explanation of how an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors that entails a little more detail than by natural selection or 'evolution is a fact?"

You seem to have great criticism for the theory of evolution but when I ask you for your theory of creation in a thread about human evolution it will "spoof the thread?" Convenient that...

How would a theory of creation help you understand the Darwinist claim that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

It's true that the theory of evolution is always looking to improve based on the evidence. If you feel uncomfortable with the scientific method and need a theory locked in stone then stick with the theory of creation. What was that theory again?

If there is no theory of creation does that mean we are stuck with Darwin's racist fantasy of an African species of humans originating from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

Welcome to the scientific method.

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism and his racist fantasy that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman apes or their ancestors once upon a time in Africa.

You're clearly unhappy with Evolution but you offer no alternative. I would like to consider the theory of creation but you are silent about it.

[Neandertal Ned]

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

Can you give us an explanation of how an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors that entails a little more detail than by natural selection or 'evolution is a fact?"

You seem to have great criticism for the theory of evolution but when I ask you for your theory of creation in a thread about human evolution it will "spoof the thread?" Convenient that...

How would a theory of creation help you understand the Darwinist claim that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

It's true that the theory of evolution is always looking to improve based on the evidence. If you feel uncomfortable with the scientific method and need a theory locked in stone then stick with the theory of creation. What was that theory again?

If there is no theory of creation does that mean we are stuck with Darwin's racist fantasy of an African species of humans originating from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

Welcome to the scientific method.

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism and his racist fantasy that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman apes or their ancestors once upon a time in Africa.

You're clearly unhappy with Evolution but you offer no alternative. I would like to consider the theory of creation but you are silent about it.

Why do you need to believe in theories? Are you a professional scientist?

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?

Do you have to explain and account for your origins to someone? If so, who, and why?

[Clownboat]

Could you give us a theory of creation please that entails a little more than god did it?

Can you give us an explanation of how an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors that entails a little more detail than by natural selection or 'evolution is a fact?"

You seem to have great criticism for the theory of evolution but when I ask you for your theory of creation in a thread about human evolution it will "spoof the thread?" Convenient that...

How would a theory of creation help you understand the Darwinist claim that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

It's true that the theory of evolution is always looking to improve based on the evidence. If you feel uncomfortable with the scientific method and need a theory locked in stone then stick with the theory of creation. What was that theory again?

If there is no theory of creation does that mean we are stuck with Darwin's racist fantasy of an African species of humans originating from nonhuman or subhuman African apes or their ancestors?

Welcome to the scientific method.

There is nothing scientific about Darwinism and his racist fantasy that an African species of humans originated from nonhuman or subhuman apes or their ancestors once upon a time in Africa.

You're clearly unhappy with Evolution but you offer no alternative. I would like to consider the theory of creation but you are silent about it.

Why do you need to believe in theories? Are you a professional scientist?

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?

Do you have to explain and account for your origins to someone? If so, who, and why?

You must be quoting and then responding to the wrong posts.

Again... he asked:
"You're clearly unhappy with Evolution but you offer no alternative. I would like to consider the theory of creation but you are silent about it."

[Neandertal Ned]

You must be quoting and then responding to the wrong posts.

Again... he asked:
"You're clearly unhappy with Evolution but you offer no alternative. I would like to consider the theory of creation but you are silent about it."

Obviously, I neither believe in nor subscribe to any theories, so I will have to ask you why you need to believe in theories? Are you a professional scientist?

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?

Do you have to explain and account for your origins to someone? If so, who, and why?