Why do people deny evolution?

While ignoring the overall question of whether or not they had sufficiently exploited all the available food sources, particularly forage foods.

But then, you only come here to argue.

Why do you ignore the evidence I provided that some Neanderthal groups did eat shellfish, if that aspect is important to you?

Because you little coward are scared to admit that I proved you wrong once more.

I didn't say it was important to me, you say that, after cherry-picking something to argue about. I have reported you for the name-calling.

Of course, this is just another example of you showing up only because you like to argue.

What a hypocrite you are, Set!

Whatever...

what this little qrgument did was to drive me to my resources and lern something interesting bout ome of the recent work on our cousins the H. n. Name;y, several groups pf academics have been anaylzing H. n. poop with UH-PLC 9looking at molar masses of **** components) and have found that, not only were they opportunistic eaters, they also had a measurably significant mass of veggie foods in their GI's.

Now, what Id like to know next is whether they dumped in a corner of the cave or did they just go about "shitting in the woods" like a wild bear.?

Ive seen no evidence of neanderthal tile fields

I would think in the wild. These guys must have had a sense of smell...

That's an interesting question. They may have pooped in a corner of the cave at night--going out to poop at night may not have been a good idea. (By the way, there's a relatively new Israeli site where h.n. lived in the open--so they must not have all been troglodytes.) So many of our persistent and dangerous diseases come from domestic animals--chickens, swine, sheep and cattle. That would not have been a problem for them, in the pre-agricultural world. Cholera, however, derives from shellfish and plankton/diatoms. The last place h.n. are believed to have lived in Europe is the southwest of what we now call Spain. So maybe they got wiped out by the goddamned shellfish that one of the members here has such a hard-on about.

Something you joked about rang a bell: you said your dogs won't have any seafood. Been thinking that one difference between humans and other animals is precisely that our species can eat stuff that it finds instinctively gross. We can develop 'aquired tastes' while dogs find it much harder. In this sense, to assume (wrongly) that h.n. ate only one type of food is to treat the species as non-human, unable to adapt as humans do, including through the plasticity of our diets.

Pretty sure farmer is right about foraging. Research on chimps has recently shown they eat over 100 kinds of vegetable foods and at least seven kinds of animals. And modern humans will try to eat basically anything that will fit in our mouths, and if it doesn't fit, we'll cut it down until it does and then try it. No reason to think our ancestors were any less adventurous eaters, particularly since they were living in essentially untouched environments. Modern hunter gatherers spend much less time getting their food than we do, and most of the mass of iot comes from the gathering part of it (in most societies, provided by the women, while the guys lie around and occasionally hunt). We've most likely done the same since we were proto-chimps.

interestingly, chimps most preferred food seems to be figs. And I think figs grow at least as far notrth ss the middle east. And in medieval Xian art, Adam and Ever are pictured as wearing fig leaves over their pubes. Therd were of course no adam or eve, but maybe h.n. and h.s.s. followed figs out of Africa and that's why we're here (that I will admit is pure speculation with no evidence at all).

and, if we were all Merkins, we would eat anything that we could put between two slices of bread.

and if you were a scientist you would address issues of science, not flee from them.

Your fixafion on 9-11 trutherism and science as somehow equivalent is one that only you and nutballs share.

I moved it to the following for you, where I am more than willing to discuss it with you, MJ.

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-57#post-6715779

Apparently, you just jumped in and are having a go at it. My remarks concerned an Israeli archaeological site where h.n. and h.s.s. lived side by side for centuries. The proportion of forage food in the h.n. middens was much less than the proportion of forage foods in the h.s.s. middens. You do know that we have been talking about and comparing h.n. to h.s.s.? Once again, my original remarks concerned the findings at an Israeli archaeological site.

Where is your evidence, Setanta? Why do you expect anyone to believe a guy who just posts his opinions with no back up?

I missed your original post. Please give me the cite for the Israeli research again. I did a quick search for some of the literature on Neanderthal tooth wear, since different kinds of diets leave different patterns of wear on teeth. H.n. AZpparently h.n. diet varied quite a vbit.,,Some studies showed largely meat diets, while others showed varying amounts of vegetable material with meat. Considering Neander occupation covered several hundred thousand years with a variety of climatic conditions, from ice age to interglacial, anc corresponding variation in foodstuffs available, this variation is not to be wondered t. It does tend to indicate that h.n. was an opportunistic feeder, like our pre human ancestors, modern primates, and hunter gatherers over the millennia.

I don't tend to believe in Evolution because it seems to be trying to take on too much presumption. Convergent Evolution looks more to me like cleverness, rather than some kind of natural commonality or coincidence.

Let me list these concerns I have about Evolution:
1) It is being treated and forwarded on Religious sites- yet the same who post and believe Evolution claim it is not a religion. Something is weird, possibly dishonest about that.
2)Evolution is being treated as a fact, when it is actually an assumption.
3) Tons of evidence FOR Evolution are also evidences for Creation and a common Creator.
4) Evolution is unimportant. Belief in Evolution doesn't really change anything. If I deny Evolution and Evolution turns out to be 100% true, it still wouldn't matter monetarily, eternally, politically, religiously, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't remove God, or has a possibility of removing belief in God, it doesn't change what I eat or drink. Evolution is perhaps the most worthless topic to argue about on the face of the Earth.
5) Evolutionary Theory is commonly conflated with Creation; abiogenesis or whatever one calls the origin of life, but there are Evolutionists who deny Evolution being about that. If Evolution is conflated with the origin of life, then I understand comparing Evolution to Creation. If Evolution is not about the origin of life, then it is comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't fit, and the Evolutionist is either being contrary to himself, or is being underhanded about motive.

Ok. Let me list the concerns I have about your concerns:
1. What the hell are you talking about?
2. Evolution is a scientific fact, not an assumption.
3. Only if you are confused.
4. Evolution is extremely important. It's the cornerstone of modern biology, the knowledge of which is used to help millions of people every day.
5. Evolution is about evolution. Abiogenesis is about abiogenesis. Nice and simple, two different things. One thing they have in common however is that they are both pure and natural, unsullied by the clumsy machinations of any creator.