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 5:01 pm

Ozgirl wrote:
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.
But you are reluctant to offer it to us for examination. For example the amount of kinds/species on the boat and how they got to be the millions of species we now have on earth.

Evolutionists have not got a story because they make it up as they go along.
No, they don't.

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.
Both are falsifiable, but only creationism has been proven false so far. You just like to pick small parts of the TOE, call it mud and throw the baby out with the bath water.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:02 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
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?

You're losing me more and more with each of your posts.

In the one above, you posit the obvious. Why and for what relevance I cannot tell.

Be well.

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:06 pm

Clownboat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
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?
You're losing me more and more with each of your posts.

In the one above, you posit the obvious. Why and for what relevance I cannot tell.

Be well.

Thanks. You too.

sayak83 · Post by **sayak83** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:30 am

How the science of human origins is really done.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/

Here's the scientific evidence in an audio-visual format for easier digestion.

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:24 am

sayak83 wrote: How the science of human origins is really done.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/

Here's the scientific evidence in an audio-visual format for easier digestion.

Looks like a high-school science program.

I couldn't find the pencil test so I may not be a good example of Homo sapiens.

In fact, how would I know that I am a Homo sapiens if some Darwinist didn't just slap that label on me?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:29 pm

Neandertal Ned wrote:
sayak83 wrote: How the science of human origins is really done.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/

Here's the scientific evidence in an audio-visual format for easier digestion.
Looks like a high-school science program.

I couldn't find the pencil test so I may not be a good example of Homo sapiens.

In fact, how would I know that I am a Homo sapiens if some Darwinist didn't just slap that label on me?

As opposed to you slapping label's on biologists that accept the TOE? Do you think it's too complicated, since it was put in a format that was simplifed so high school students could understand it?

Neandertal Ned · Post by **Neandertal Ned** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:06 pm

Goat wrote:
Neandertal Ned wrote:
sayak83 wrote: How the science of human origins is really done.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/

Here's the scientific evidence in an audio-visual format for easier digestion.
Looks like a high-school science program.

I couldn't find the pencil test so I may not be a good example of Homo sapiens.

In fact, how would I know that I am a Homo sapiens if some Darwinist didn't just slap that label on me?
As opposed to you slapping label's on biologists that accept the TOE?

Well, they started it and deserve to get slapped back with a few labels themselves.

Do you think it's too complicated, since it was put in a format that was simplifed so high school students could understand it?

The pencil test? I couldn't find it. Maybe I am not a real Homo sapiens or Neandertal at all.