What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Skepdick]

I'm pretty certain they would not qualify as "failed mutations" in Canspeak; at least not of humans. So I'm curious to see how Mr Can accounts for them.

Which has what to do with anything? They qualify as such in your speak. Else you wouldn't have listed them as examples of such.

What is there to account for? They were selected out. By whatever counts as "natural selection".

[Skepdick]

I JUST ASKED you, 'HOW do you even DEFINE the 'evolution' word, EXACTLY?'

How do you evne DEFINE the "DEFINE" and "EXACTLY" words, EXACTLY?

[Fairy]

What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

We're going to move this topic to a new thread, Will, and leave this one for its original purpose. You'd be welcome to pose this question there.

So I have.

The evidence is self-evident in the actual direct experience of being a human.

There is a conscious experience of being a human only for a human, and that human experience cannot be anything else other than human.
For example: For the human, there is no experience of an experience that is not a human experience.


That's the only evidence needed, the evidence is the actual process of evolving from a seed into a fully grown organism. Evolution is the expansiveness of unconscious to conscious knowing.



For example: A human baby can only experience a human experience when the consciousness has expanded enough for the baby to become self-aware, to the point of knowing itself as and through the concept of itself, namely human.

[Flannel Jesus]

Fairy,

What the shit are you talking about?

[Fairy]

Fairy,

What the shit are you talking about?

I'm talking about the experience of being human.

I'm already the evidence of human evolution.

The OP question is open to interpretation, is it not?

[Flannel Jesus]

Fairy,

What the shit are you talking about?

I'm talking about the experience of being human.

I'm already the evidence of human evolution.

The OP question is open to interpretation, is it not?

No not really. The op is about the evolution of the human species, not your personal experience of being human.

[Immanuel Can]

Present the record, then...minus the apes, which we now know are a different genetic "branch" from the humans, and minus the various alleged "ancestors" that have already been proven to be frauds: so no Piltdown Man, no Nebraska Man, no Java Man...and what have you got left?

Well, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but a simple google search comes up with:
Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Nakalipithecus, Ouranopithecus, Samburupithecus, Chororapithecus, Oreopithecus, Sivapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus.

Yep, I can write a bunch of words I don't understand, too. I'll bet you're one of those guys who fell for the old monkey-to-man charts...and maybe still have missed the memo on that.

But you're minus all those millions of "failed" mutations, no matter what list you contrive. There ought to be far more such failures in the fossil record, by orders of magnitude, than of alleged actual ancestors. Where did they all magically go?

[Will Bouwman]

Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus, Homo heidelbergensis, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Nakalipithecus, Ouranopithecus, Samburupithecus, Chororapithecus, Oreopithecus, Sivapithecus, Sahelanthropus, Graecopithecus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus.

Yep, I can write a bunch of words I don't understand, too.

You don't need to understand them, because they're not just words. Each of them is associated with at least one fossil that has some characteristic that suggests we have a common ancestor.

I'll bet you're one of those guys who fell for the old monkey-to-man charts...and maybe still have missed the memo on that.

Yeah, I probably did believe that at some point. You live and learn.

But you're minus all those millions of "failed" mutations, no matter what list you contrive. There ought to be far more such failures in the fossil record, by orders of magnitude, than of alleged actual ancestors. Where did they all magically go?

That is a terrible argument. Fossilisation is not as common as you apparently believe. Were it so, we should expect vastly more fossils, or at least remains, of all the humans that ever lived. We don't because:
"After skeletonization, if scavenging animals do not destroy or remove the bones, acids in many fertile soils take about 20 years to completely dissolve the skeleton of mid- to large-size mammals, such as humans, leaving no trace of the organism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletoni ... definitely.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're minus all those millions of "failed" mutations, no matter what list you contrive. There ought to be far more such failures in the fossil record, by orders of magnitude, than of alleged actual ancestors. Where did they all magically go?

That is a terrible argument. Fossilisation is not as common as you apparently believe.

That is a terrible response. If you're right, that makes it even LESS likely we would find the requisite progenitors, and MORE likely that whatever we found would be those failed cases.

But where are all the failed cases? For every one successful alleged progenitor, there should literally be millions...and precisely because fossilization is comparatively rare, the chances we should find ANY such progenitors is diminishingly small...if human evolutionism were even remotely true.

[Will Bouwman]

But where are all the failed cases? For every one successful alleged progenitor, there should literally be millions...and precisely because fossilization is comparatively rare, the chances we should find ANY such progenitors is diminishingly small...if human evolutionism were even remotely true.

What do you think the fossils we do have are?

[Immanuel Can]

But where are all the failed cases? For every one successful alleged progenitor, there should literally be millions...and precisely because fossilization is comparatively rare, the chances we should find ANY such progenitors is diminishingly small...if human evolutionism were even remotely true.

What do you think the fossils we do have are?

Of human beings? Well, some are like the Piltdown Man, simply a fraud. Some are miscalculations: the Hamburg Neanderthal was found, eventually, to be only 7,500 years old. Peking Man, who used to feature in all the monkey-to-man charts, went mysteriously missing. Pithecanthropus erectus was "assembled" out of a skull cap, a femur and a few teeth...plus a ton of wishful thinking...and so it goes.

What's a more interesting question is why anthropological "scientists" (so-called, though they've proved unworthy of that name) were so keen to adopt so many frauds into their tales of human ancestry. It's almost as if they were in a desperate rush to close all the "missing links," and subsequently got bamboozled on multiple occasions. This is what happens when one assumes one's conclusion, and then works to fill in the missing details, instead of following the evidence where it leads, of course.

But I come back to the main question: evolution is alleged, by scientists, to be a massively "wasteful process." That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection. If the proposed human evolutionary tree, therefore, looks too "clean," it brings into question what mechanism was really involved; it can't have been evolution. So either the proposed tree is purified propaganda, or some explanation needs to be made for why we are being told scientists have been able to find a tidy lineage of "successful" mutations, when the same scientists claim that evolution has no teleological direction inherent in it. Either way, something very obvious is being left out of the story we're being sold.

[Fairy]

Fairy,

What the shit are you talking about?

I'm talking about the experience of being human.

I'm already the evidence of human evolution.

The OP question is open to interpretation, is it not?

No not really. The op is about the evolution of the human species, not your personal experience of being human.

ok, but I was under the impression every human had their own personal experience of being human.

I'll just stay invisible then, that seems to be the norm when women are in the company of man speak.

[Flannel Jesus]

ok, but I was under the impression every human had their own personal experience of being human.

I'll just stay invisible then, that seems to be the norm when women are in the company of man speak.

Evolution isn't a man's topic by any means! But it's also not just synonymous with "human experience".

Here's some women who contributed to the history of the theory of evolution:

Mary Anning, who discovered a number of Jurassic fossils.
Lynn Margulis, who developed the theory of endosymbiosis. This is a theory about how complex cells evolved from symbiotic relationships between simpler cells.
Barbara McClintock, who discovered "jumping genes".
Rosemary Grant, who studied Darwin's Finches long-term to give real-time observations of natural selection and speciation.

[Fairy]

Evolution isn't a man's topic by any means! But it's also not just synonymous with "human experience".

Of course evolution is synonymous with human experience.

How did the 'human experience' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....Evolved from what exactly, or are we not entirely human at all. What exactly is able to know it is having a human experience, answer that?

Why don't other animals ponder why they are the species they are, and how they evolved? Why only do humans think about how they evolved?

[Flannel Jesus]

Evolution isn't a man's topic by any means! But it's also not just synonymous with "human experience".

Of course evolution is synonymous with human experience.

Lol. Okay.