What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[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.

Lol. Okay.

[Age]

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

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

LOL
LOL
LOL

'This one' has, AGAIN, JUST PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, that it ABSOLUTELY BLIND, and thus BEING ABSOLUTELY STUPID, here.

I JUST DID what it ASKED FOR, ONCE MORE, but it FAILED TO READ, and COMPREHEND, ONCE AGAIN.

[Age]

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.

AND, just like what was BEFORE you human beings, became EXTINCT, as you human beings 'evolved' IN TO being, through 'evolution', itself, you human beings WILL also become EXTINCT, as well, as the ACTUAL One 'Thing', which is ALWAYS 'evolving', 'evolves' IN TO and UP TO the 'next level' and 'stage', of COMING-TO-KNOW 'thy Self'.

See, ONLY you human beings HAVE A 'conscious experience' of being A 'human' ONLY. But, OBVIOUSLY you human beings are MOST CERTAINLY NOT the 'last stop' ALONG the 'evolutionary ladder' of Life, Itself.

For example: For the human, there is no experience of an experience that is not a human experience.

It is because of BELIEFS like 'this one', which CREATE MISCONCEPTIONS, which is one reason WHY these posters, here, ARE, and WERE, SO FAR BEHIND, NOT 'evolving', and thus SO SLOW in 'CATCHING UP'.

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.

And, again, 'evolution' did NOT stop at ONLY the 'human only conscious level' of 'knowing'. No, what actually happens is 'evolution' KEEPS GOING ALL 'the way' UP TO the FULLY and IRREFUTABLE level of Awareness, and '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.

YET, and LAUGHINGLY SO, even 'you' adult human beings, when this was being written anyway, did NOT YET KNOW who AND what 'you' are, EXACTLY, let alone even being CLOSER to KNOWING 'Who and what 'I' AM, EXACTLY'.

But, you human beings WILL, and DID, CATCH UP, EVENTUALLY.

[Age]

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.

OBVIOUSLY you MISSED the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, here.

Which IS, some people JUST ACCEPT the 'experience of being human' AS 'the EVIDENCE' FOR 'human evolution'.

you may well NOT ACCEPT that 'you', being a 'human being', and 'living' THROUGH 'the EXPERIENCES' of 'being human', as 'evidence' FOR 'human evolution', but others do.

Have you, here, YET, EXPRESSED what you ACCEPT as 'evidence' for 'human evolution'? Or, do you BELIEVE, like some others, here, that absolutely EVERY species, and thing, was ALL CREATED, ALL AT ONCE, BY some OTHER THING?

[Flannel Jesus]

I didn't read that. I'm just wondering, has anyone ever told you to fuck off?

[Age]

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.

you had only to write the words, 'God is a he', TO SHOW that you REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND things, here.

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.

NOT MAYBE, 'you', "immanuel can" ARE one of those human beings who FELL, COMPLETELY, INTO the IRREFUTABLE False CLAIM that 'God is a he', and who created the WHOLE Universe, ALL AT ONCE.

But you're minus all those millions of "failed" mutations, no matter what list you contrive.

What is this talk of 'failed mutations'?

HOW would ANY one KNOW IF there were so-called 'failed mutations'?

OBVIOUSLY, if there is a so-called 'failed mutation', then 'it' NEVER even EVENTUATED.

The 'mutations' TO 'human being' PROVES that 'mutations' EXISTED. However, by definition A 'failed mutation' could NEVER be KNOWN OF, nor KNOWN ABOUT, exactly.

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?

A so-called 'failed mutation', by DEFINITION, FAILED TO come-to-exist, FAILED TO come-into-being, or FAILED TO be-created, and/or TO be-come.

So, WHERE 'they' ARE IS OBVIOUS.

[Age]

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?

LOL

'This one' is more or less, REALLY, ASKING FOR, 'WHERE are all of the FAILED 'evolved' species of things?'

Which is BEYOND ABSURDITY, itself.

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.

Which one, or which ones, of the VERY MANY DIFFERENT 'human' VARIANTS, or VARIATIONS, do you BELIEVE was NOT a prior or previous one, or, a later or subsequent one, along the 'evolution' line of the species, known, here, as 'human', EXACTLY?

And, WHERE and WHEN do you BELIEVE ALL 'humans' came-into-being, EXACTLY?

Also, HOW do you BELIEVE ALL humans were CREATED, EXACTLY, if NOT through EVOLUTION, itself?

[Age]

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.

LOL What do you think it is commonly referred to and called when one is, STILL, SO KEEN TO ADOPT the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS FRAUD of a story about a 'being with a penis, and a beard', who, supposedly, created absolutely EVERY thing, ALL at once?

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.

LOL you are an EXPERT at this EXACT FORM OF DECEPTION and of FOOLING "oneself" "Immanuel can". As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED throughout this forum. Some of which I have ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED.

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.

Do 'they'?

If yes, then WHICH ONES, EXACTLY?

Not that you would EVER CLARIFY and CLEAR things UP, here.

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.

LOL Talk ABOUT, ONCE AGAIN, another PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' FIND words, and USE them in some particular order, in the HOPE that they WILL back up and support ones VERY OWN ALREADY OBTAINED PRESUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

you have ONLY ASSUMED your OWN CONCLUSION, here, "Immanuel can", and ARE 'TRYING' your HARDEST TO FILL IN, what OBVIOUSLY COULD NEVER.

I WILL, AGAIN, COME BACK TO your CLAIM that God is a being, with male genitalia, and who you 'TRY TO' CLAIM CREATED EVERY thing. Now, what ACTUAL PROOF EXISTS for such a Truly LAUGHABLE STORY?

you ATTEMPTS AT DEFLECTION, and DECEPTION, here, ALTHOUGH ARE FOOLING 'you', they ARE NOT FOOLING 'me', here.

If you REALLY WANT TO CLAIM that SOME "scientists" ALLEGE some thing/s, here, then PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF that "those scientists" have ACTUALLY ALLEGED 'this' AT ALL.

Not that you EVER WOULD.

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.

YES, and that IS -The ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth.

your human beings OWN 'personal truths' DO NOT MATTER, here, AT ALL. Unless, OF COURSE, they ALIGN WITH the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of things. And, OBVIOUSLY, 'your OWN personal truths', here, "immanuel can" CERTAINLY DO NOT. As 'I" have ALREADY SHOWN, and PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True.

Also, is it ONLY the so-called 'human evolutionary tree', which 'looks' so-called 'too clean', TO you?

What about the 'dinosaur evolutionary tree', the 'microbe evolutionary tree', the 'dog evolutionary tree', or the 'fish evolutionary tree', are they ALSO 'too clean', TO you, AS WELL?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

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".

Are you even AWARE that this thread is ABOUT 'human evolution', AND what 'evidence' one WOULD ACCEPT FOR 'human evolution'?

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.

[Age]

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?

Would you like the LONG or the SHORT ANSWER?

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?

Is it an IRREFUTABLE Fact that ONLY you human beings ponder WHY 'you' are the species that you are, and how you evolved?

[Age]

I didn't read that. I'm just wondering, has anyone ever told you to fuck off?

BUT WHY ANSWER 'this QUESTION', here? you may well NEVER read that, AS WELL.

ALSO, and ONCE AGAIN, 'we' have ANOTHER PRIME example of ANOTHER one who WHEN SHOWN, and/or PROVED, TO HAVE FAULTY or Wrong VIEWS and/or BELIEFS, then ALL it can RESORT TO and RESPOND WITH is some thing, VERY LAUGHINGLY, like, 'fuck off', ONLY.

It is like 'these people', STILL, had NOT YET RECOGNIZED that 'they' are in an ACTUAL 'philosophy forum', where, what they SAY and WRITE can be 'LOOK AT', and 'SEEN', and thus what they ACTUALLY KNOW and/or DO NOT KNOW, as well as 'their ways' of MIS/BEHAVING, ARE BEING NOTICED.

[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?

Would you like the LONG or the SHORT ANSWER?

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?

Is it an IRREFUTABLE Fact that ONLY you human beings ponder WHY 'you' are the species that you are, and how you evolved?

Thanks, I’m not fussy, a long or short answer will be helpful, I’ll leave it up to you to choose. I’m easy.

[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?

Of human beings? Well, some are like the Piltdown Man, simply a fraud.

Well, that one certainly was.

Some are miscalculations: the Hamburg Neanderthal was found, eventually, to be only 7,500 years old.

Apparently that was fraud too, but I grant that are likely to have been miscalculations, that is just the nature of science.

Peking Man, who used to feature in all the monkey-to-man charts, went mysteriously missing.

Here he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man

Pithecanthropus erectus was "assembled" out of a skull cap, a femur and a few teeth...

Which, since the entire skeleton wasn't preserved, goes to show how rare fossilisation is.

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.

Well, if that's the sort of question that interests you, you might ask yourself why you are so keen to adopt interpretations that deny human evolution.

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.

It may not be so obvious to you, but I think most people will recognise the pot calling the kettle black.

But I come back to the main question: evolution is alleged, by scientists, to be a massively "wasteful process."

Who are you quoting?

That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection.

Again, where did you get that number from?

[Immanuel Can]

But I come back to the main question: evolution is alleged, by scientists, to be a massively "wasteful process."

Who are you quoting?

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection.

Again, where did you get that number from?

From Evolutionists. It is they that have set the timelines and terms of their theory. It certainly isn't me.

[Will Bouwman]

But I come back to the main question: evolution is alleged, by scientists, to be a massively "wasteful process."

Who are you quoting?

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

Not my job. If you put something in quotation marks, it is for you to cite the source. You are making an appeal to authority, bad in itself, but that you can't even cite the source is just a licence to make up any old bollocks.

Again, where did you get that number from?

From Evolutionists. It is they that have set the timelines and terms of their theory. It certainly isn't me.

You are just making up any old bollocks. You have to learn the basics if you want to even pretend to be a philosopher.