Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
First thing that's very obvious is that your "good read" doesn't have any single reference. There are thousands and thousand research papers about the theory of evolution or about human evolution specific, and yet not one is mentioned, addressed, refuted or acknowledged.
To produce new variants and species faster than natural selection, yes.So it takes conscious processes then.
The precise lineage of humans is unclear but the candidates are well-established. This author appears to have no qualifications in the field, yet is judging skulls by how they look to him and opining that the consensus of expert opinion is 'impossible'. Given that he's also editor of conspiracy and fringe pseudoscience nonsense fluff like 'The Truth about Extra Terrestrials' and 'Understanding Reality', my Bayesian priors for his reliability and credibility are rock-bottom.
Yes.Oh my word! You mean the entire scientific establishment is mistaken?
The same evidence that is available to you is available to us.doubtingmerle said:Please, please, share the evidence that led you to this conclusion.
And yet it's still just a theory.There are thousands and thousand research papers about the theory of evolution or about human evolution specific, and yet not one is mentioned, addressed, refuted or acknowledged.
To produce new variants and species faster than natural selection, yes.
No, clearly not. What makes you ask - do you think somehow it might? If so, please explain how.Hmmmm, and could it still appear to have taken the course of many millions of years?
No, clearly not. What makes you ask - do you think somehow it might? If so, please explain how.
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
First thing that's very obvious is that your "good read" doesn't have any single reference. There are thousands and thousand research papers about the theory of evolution or about human evolution specific, and yet not one is mentioned, addressed, refuted or acknowledged.
I wonder how you can refute an entire field of science without addressing not a single paper written about that science.
The precise lineage of humans is unclear but the candidates are well-established. This author appears to have no qualifications in the field, yet is judging skulls by how they look to him and opining that the consensus of expert opinion is 'impossible'. Given that he's also editor of conspiracy and fringe pseudoscience nonsense fluff like 'The Truth about Extra Terrestrials' and 'Understanding Reality', my Bayesian priors for his reliability and credibility are rock-bottom.
That's before his logical and factual errors. For example, other primates are not 5 to 10 times stronger than we are:
“There’s this idea out there that chimpanzees are superhuman strong,” says Matthew O’Neill at the University of Arizona in Phoenix. Yet his team’s experiments and computer models show that a chimpanzee muscle is only about a third stronger than a human one of the same size.
This result matches well with the few tests that have been done, which suggest that when it comes to pulling and jumping, chimps are about 1.5 times as strong as humans relative to their body mass. But because they are lighter than the average person, humans can actually outperform them in absolute terms, say O’Neill.
His findings suggest that other apes have similar muscle strength to chimpanzees. “Humans are the odd ones,” he says.
And this comment seems odd: "Most damningly (for Darwinism), there is not a single human bone in the supposed pre-human fossil record." - would you expect to find human bones in the pre-human fossil record?
My conclusion? Meh.
Was there any evidence you could share with us that led you to this conclusion?My conclusion? Meh, atheist.
Was there any evidence you could share with us that led you to this conclusion?
Yup, the evidence for that is unequivocal (it's displayed under my name)My conclusion? Meh, atheist.
Care to explain how that's relevant?I always like to use the diffusion analogy, like when you stir up a cup of coffee.
I don't know... we have their heads. Seems pretty conclusive.Still no 'actual' evidence of the missing link/s!
Care to explain how that's relevant?
To produce new variants and species faster than natural selection, yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?