Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Neologist said:

I don't give a rat's ass about catholicism, mormonism, JW-ism or any other organised religions and oddball cults, they're all crackpot fundies to me and i'm happy to slap 'em around..
At least you've got guts enough to admit you're a JW, unlike the chickens in here whose profiles are blank because they daren't admit what fairy queens they worship..

I remember when I used to joke with the OP over her name, calling her "ape person" It was all good natured repartee; I'm sorry to see she has left for other endeavors. But I respect the theme of this discussion and I apologize for going off topic in my zeal to roast RF. I beg leave and will continue my loyal reading and occasional interjection as I have in the past.

Mea Culpa.

Hi aperson, your questions are very very important!
i believe an evolution exist,because our mind goes always forward
Sorry but my english

Texas Monthly
Texas by the numbers: Number of Texas teachers certified to teach math and science in 2011: 3,450. That figure in 2012: 2,643.

http://txmnth.ly/1b5pEJu

Congratulations. You have demonstrated that you have no idea as to what a scientific theory is. You might want to repeat elementary school general science and learn what the attributes of a valid scientific theory are. Your definition is 100% incorrect.

BTW, there are many facts that support the theory, but none that invalidate it.

Romeo hasn't posted here for yonks. That post is over 3 years old.

Evolution is a fact: theories explain how it works.

Gravity is a fact: theories explain how it works. Denying gravity doesn't make you fly like superman. Standing on one's head doesn't reverse gravity. It just seems like it does.

Believing in a supernatural doesn't stop evolution, and life goes on.

simple, scholarly, and to the point. See whether some of the doofii still dont get it.

Based on a couple of fossils, some are writing articles to claim humans first evolved in Europe, not Africa. I wonder what our resident brains think about that.

Here's the nuts and bolts of human evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

my thoughts are that the ancestors of homo were australopithecenes, ardipithecenes, or sahelepithecenes. These were ALL separated from any European Homo fossils by several million years of dated stratigraphy, (nd remembering Ernst Mayrs statement that the place with the most and the widest variety of ancestrql fossils of a derived species, well that place is probably the best candidate as the "cradle geography"

Seems like Africa'a got the
1most fossils of the various species of the above critters
and

2The broadest variety of species and genera of the genus Homo.


I dont see how anybody who works in the field would be making a statement like you paraphrased. (Unless its some bunch of conspiracy theorists or alien "helper " theorists)

I've seen a couple of articles making the claim in the last week. I feel like it is pretty flimsy, but as I say, I like to hear from people like you about it.

One of the articles here
http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/first-human-ancestors-evolved-in-europe-not-africa-study-4670903/

Ill have to read the article but Im very dubious about the evolution of Homo being a European thing. The fossil of Graeco, at least is recognized to be in a suitable geologic environment for the time. The Med was pretty much a dry land area so .

If this has any validity, there must be some more variability shown for the entire evolutionary story. I can see a whole number of possibilities
1. that H neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis were actually "disruptive evolutionary end members" that didnt have anything to do with H s. s. but was on an evolutionary pathway of its own and the fossil pithecenes that led to Homo, actually were on the other path.
2the Herto site, is a waterside location that trends the line of human evolution along the rift valley from the Horn of Africa. A land journey from Europe to Africa would probably favor this side because of the near by water resources.(The dry bed of the Med was pretty much desert)

Interesting , worth some scholarly publications . Im sure my Geoscience journals'll have some more details in a coupla months.
Plos has good standard of science reporting. Its a journal itself, just a bit too wide of a reach

@farmerman,
I've seen a couple of articles making the claim in the last week. I feel like it is pretty flimsy, but as I say, I like to hear from people like you about it.
---------

From the remarkably inept liar who not very many posts ago, said he was putting me on ignore.

Why do you want to hear anything from a known liar, Edgar? A science denier. A person who regularly makes a mockery of his professional oaths.

I am jumping in on this conversation and don't understand the debate! I don't have the time to file through 3 year of old information, so if somebody could fill me in with the reader's digest version I would appreciate it... I guess what I am asking here is this a debate between God and evolution? Can't you believe in both?... Could not have not God created evolution? 30% of scientist believe in God
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif

It's not included in the bible, and we all know god is all knowing.
The theory of evolution was a late comer to human knowledge. You do know about Charles Darwin?
But god knew about it long before Charles.

Ya Charles Darwin waffled back and forth... Can't blame him, we hadn't discovered quantum physics yet...

Copied and pasted!

He claimed to be an agnostic and stopped attending church services at age 40. He'd still walk his wife and children to the church gates, but then go on a constitutional in the woods and gardens around town until they were done.

Here are two examples from Darwin himself:

"In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind.""

"In uncharacteristically bold discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" When they responded that they "did not commit the folly of god-denial, [and] avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion", Darwin gave a thoughtful response, concluding that "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist."
Aveling replied that, "after all, 'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive."
Darwin smiled and responded "Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?""

Don't get me wrong he was a great evolutionist but he wrestled with this... and if he had known about quantum physics he could have had both...

I tend to trust men more who wrestle with things instead of being so cocksure all the time. Especially about things like life and death and god and man.

How un-American of you, Snood.