Like the Cambrian explosion. Unexplainable by your science belief models.
Well we do know that the "Cambrian explosion" wasnt really "an explosion" at all. It was more like lighting a campfire that extended through the Ediacaran and is actually traceable via fossil assemblages of more complex life forms likeDickinsonia
(and radionuclide decay of long lived isotopes) since the end of the Cryogenian and it extended to the end of the Proterozoic into the Lower Cambrian (It extends the "explosion" to about 60 million yeqrs. Weve got excellent age determinations on that. Theyve recently ound fossils of the mid Ediacaran that display "hard parts" (hard parts are what hs classicaly separated the"Cambrian explosion fauna" from the Proterozoic).BECAUSE the lower Cambrian was chosen as a point WHEN life containing shells and /or skeletons first appeared)> Gotta agree that's a pretty lame working hypothesis.
To go from small extended family tribes of nomads with skins for clothes and only stone tools, to suddenly deciding to form very large civilizations and cities using massive stoneworks of advanced methods of construction, along with the knowledge of irrigation and intensive horticulture, and even water supply systems, dams, OVERNIGHT in the evolutionary sense, can not be explained by your "scientist' mates
Who knows (yet) maybe there is something there that involved inbreeding of some unknown more advanced genetics,weve only discovered fossils of waaay back species of hominins in the last few years. Im not a paleoanthroplogist. Ive got advanced degrees in chemistry and terminal degrees in Geochemistry. All I can do is read as you say you do, and speculate about paleoanthropoids. Still I see no elements of strangeness in the evolution of civilization. With expanding family groups into settlelments of related individuals, through multi sorted communities and ultimtely settlements with division of labor would come lmost as a natural consequence of successful population growth.
If you read some really old classical works by guys like Herbert Wendt (Ich Suchte Adam
and followup In Search of Adam
youd read from a purely popular sense, how the artifacts found through time are able to help us understand the very things that seem to puzzle you.
Arrogance isnt meant to be and for that I do apologize. Ive spent my early career jostling with some bobble headed students whove been sent to to our Uni so they can take over the family business in mining or oil production. Ive always said, If they cant understand something, its mostly cause they dont really try. Why not just get an art egree??
These kids come into our department with their "I know it all" attitude and a 800 SAT, and find that theyve jut not been challenged. When they have to work to lrn, some will just give up and become anti-science majors. Thats very few but I alwqys feel that Ive file when the student develops an attitude wherein they come up with "Alternative theories" that are jut flat wrong.
SCience is moving ahead and it dont give a **** whether you buythe theories or not.THEORIES WORK, The theories that dont, get "worked on" and any errors found or the theory modified. Like the theory of continentl drift. It was discovered in the 1930', was poo poo's till the 1960's, was evidenced heavily from WWII electromagnetics data, and is now the lynch key tht connects all aspects of geology. (even paleoanthropology uses theories of geophysics, radioisotopic decay, thermoluminescence, organic hemistry , as well as genomics, art and lingusitics).
were I you, Id either find a site in which folks buy the same story as you seem to believe, or else, try to change your own "anti-science" attitude to be more open to critical thinking.Then try to learn a bit more because I(nd other folks here)will easily tear you a new one with the mistakes you posted above.
PS, I never said that weve learnt everything, I clearly stated that we will always try to find out and fix what we do not know YET. When you open a statement that your correspondent is presenting theories from 1890, I have to chuckle at the abysmal ignorance with which that statement is imbued. You seem to have missed several centuries of evidence because even your errors are way past their "sell by" date.
The fact that you didnt even know that finch evolution by adaptive radiation and its species change has been observed in a persons lifetime is kinda like arguing that we aint ever gonna have anything to replace the horse drawn canal boat.