Human Evolution Q&A

sayak83 · Post by **sayak83** » Mon May 07, 2012 2:55 pm

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.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote: 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?
I have no need to believe in theories. This is a concept you invented.
Are you a professional scientist?
No.

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?
No.

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?
I am satisfied with the reality of today (I say this not knowing exactly what you mean by "reality of today").
I can 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?
No.

Now it is your turn:
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.

See how this works?
(I guess I was mistaken about him quoting and responding to the wrong post and I should not have given him the credit that he may have made an honest mistake).

Post by **otseng** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:37 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote: 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?

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.

Moderator Final Warning

This is the last warning about your continual usage of the word racist. Though you might perceive it as racist, it is not universally recognized as such. So, your repeated usage of the term is considered inflammatory.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:57 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote: 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?
I have no need to believe in theories. This is a concept you invented.
Are you a professional scientist?
No.

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?
No.

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?
I am satisfied with the reality of today (I say this not knowing exactly what you mean by "reality of today").
I can 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?
No.

Now it is your turn:
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.

See how this works?
How what works? How can I be anything other than silent about a theory that I have no knowledge of?

Why don't you tell us what you consider the theory of creation to be?

Ozgirl · Post by **Ozgirl** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:10 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote: 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?
I have no need to believe in theories. This is a concept you invented.
Are you a professional scientist?
No.

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?
No.

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?
I am satisfied with the reality of today (I say this not knowing exactly what you mean by "reality of today").
I can 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?
No.

Now it is your turn:
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.

See how this works?
How what works? How can I be anything other than silent about a theory that I have no knowledge of?

Why don't you tell us what you consider the theory of creation to be?
Evolutionists expect to see mountains and libraries full of outdated, falsified and contradictory findings that support "God did it" as opposed to "it all evolved", I suppose Neanderthal Ned.

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:19 pm

Ozgirl wrote: Evolutionists expect to see mountains and libraries full of outdated, falsified and contradictory findings that support "God did it" as opposed to "it all evolved", I suppose Neanderthal Ned.

Clownboat doesn't. Like me, he doesn't need to believe in any theories at all!

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:35 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote: 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?
I have no need to believe in theories. This is a concept you invented.
Are you a professional scientist?
No.

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?
No.

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?
I am satisfied with the reality of today (I say this not knowing exactly what you mean by "reality of today").
I can 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?
No.

Now it is your turn:
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.

See how this works?
How what works? How can I be anything other than silent about a theory that I have no knowledge of?

Why don't you tell us what you consider the theory of creation to be?
No need.

I am happy just to hear you admit that you have no creation theory and just have problems with the TOE.

I understand that you have problems with the TOE and that you have nothing better for us to offer.

Why not make an effort to understand the TOE better? At least until you can come up with a theory of your own for us to examine.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:38 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
Ozgirl wrote: Evolutionists expect to see mountains and libraries full of outdated, falsified and contradictory findings that support "God did it" as opposed to "it all evolved", I suppose Neanderthal Ned.
Clownboat doesn't. Like me, he doesn't need to believe in any theories at all!

I don't understand this concept you keep repeating of "needing to believe in a theory".

Where would this "need" come from and why do you keep bringing it up?

As far as I can tell, no person "needs" to believe in anything, theory or not.

Ozgirl · Post by **Ozgirl** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:30 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Clownboat wrote: 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?
I have no need to believe in theories. This is a concept you invented.
Are you a professional scientist?
No.

Are you under some sort of uncontrollable compulsion to believe in theories like some folks feel compelled to believe in their religion?
No.

Are you not satisfied with the reality of today and cannot resist the urge to create or fabricate a former one?
I am satisfied with the reality of today (I say this not knowing exactly what you mean by "reality of today").
I can 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?
No.

Now it is your turn:
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.

See how this works?
How what works? How can I be anything other than silent about a theory that I have no knowledge of?

Why don't you tell us what you consider the theory of creation to be?
No need.

I am happy just to hear you admit that you have no creation theory and just have problems with the TOE.

I understand that you have problems with the TOE and that you have nothing better for us to offer.

Why not make an effort to understand the TOE better? At least until you can come up with a theory of your own for us to examine.
Genesis provides the paradigm for us to support, verify or falsify.

Evolutionists have not got a story because they make it up as they go along.

Therefore, I have a paradigm that is falsifiable. TOE is not falsifiable and therefore does not meet the criteria of being any more a science than what evos suggest creationism is.

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:47 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote: Why don't you tell us what you consider the theory of creation to be?

No need.

I am happy just to hear you admit that you have no creation theory and just have problems with the TOE.

I understand that you have problems with the TOE and that you have nothing better for us to offer.

Why not make an effort to understand the TOE better? At least until you can come up with a theory of your own for us to examine.
But we both agreed that neither of us need to believe in any theories.

Besides, I understand Darwin's so-called theories as well as you do but don't need to believe in them any more than you do. Don't tell us that you believe that people have no choice in the matter of believing in Darwin's so-called theories. Wouldn't that be a little fascistic?

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:53 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
Ozgirl wrote: Evolutionists expect to see mountains and libraries full of outdated, falsified and contradictory findings that support "God did it" as opposed to "it all evolved", I suppose Neanderthal Ned.
Clownboat doesn't. Like me, he doesn't need to believe in any theories at all!
I don't understand this concept you keep repeating of "needing to believe in a theory".

Where would this "need" come from and why do you keep bringing it up?

As far as I can tell, no person "needs" to believe in anything, theory or not.

There you go. Neither you, I nor anyone else "needs" to believe in any theory at all. Of course, we are all at liberty to choose to subscribe to whatever religion, ideology or theory we like, but it cannot be mandated in a democratic society, can it?