What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I can gather, you mean by "transitional forms" beings of this nature:

To be clear: is that what you think evolution predicts?

I'm mocking, obviously.

Well, if you remember, part of the aim of this thread was to see if we can respect views other than our own.

Right. And Evolutionism thrives on being taken far too seriously by people who really should know better. What's less risible about claiming a fish can become a man than claiming a banana can? For neither supposition do we have any warrant at all.

But Evolutionism does logically require us to expect to find cross-species transitions, and lots and lots of such.

What your Evolutionism logically requires is not something anyone who understands evolution need care about.

I don't have "an Evolutionism." The theory was proposed and is now sustained by others. You'll have to ask them why they think anything so devoid of the evidence the theory itself would lead us to expect is still taken seriously. I need not conjecture on that.

It's not about living organisms developing into others from a list of possibilities.

That's exactly what it's about. That's how the whole theory was assembled: by people wracking their brains to try to find plausible living organisms from which they could suggest mankind developed. Why do you think the ape-to-man theory, now debunked, was so long celebrated?

Part of your job is to explain why your God made the species in Australia so different.

No, I don't have to do that work. Animal Evolutionism has no interest or relevance to me. I don't even bother to debate it. I'm solely interested in the subject of this thread, "human evolution."

All they've done to make the absurd and non-evident plausible to the naive and trusting is to stretch out the timeline.

The naive and trusting like me?

I didn't say that. But if you do, I don't know what to tell you. No lack of respect to you was intended; I wasn't even speaking about you.

The essence is still the same: given enough time, species are supposed to transition into each other.

According to your Evolutionism perhaps,

All Evolutionism.

In fact, if one species cannot "become" another the whole theory simply reduces to the minor modification of particular species, like Darwin's finches. And nobody suggests that minor modification within the strict bounds of a single species is possible. But Evolutionism needs much more than that: it needs trans-species transformations, and millions of them, and millions continuing all the time.

Where's the evidence of that?

Where's the evidence? We should be awash in it, even now, not just in the fossil record. There should be billions of transitional forms in different phases everywhere...why then do we have nothing but fixed species, instead?

We don't.

We do. Find one species presently in transition. (And don't say, "they all are," because they're all manifestly not: a man is still a man, and interfertile with all women, composed of a single species. Despite the hopes of early eugenicists -- another lovely product of Darwin's speculations -- you'll find you've got no apes-becoming-man, anymore than you've got fish-becoming-men -- or , for that matter, the humanoid bananas.)

[Will Bouwman]

...Evolutionism thrives on being taken far too seriously by people who really should know better.

The only people who take "Evolutionism" seriously are creationists. Creationism exists primarily to defend a two and a half thousand year old myth, with even older roots, from an onslaught of facts.

What's less risible about claiming a fish can become a man than claiming a banana can? For neither supposition do we have any warrant at all.

That is because the idea that evolution predicts that we should be overwhelmed by chimera is a lie made up by religious fanatics. If I were to study theology by reading the sports pages of the Sunday Times, I would be better informed than you are regarding evolution, because at least the sports pages of the Sunday Times are not openly hostile to the idea of God.

Find one species presently in transition. (And don't say, "they all are," because they're all manifestly not...

As I have said, there is no difference that you can discern by which you could distinguish between a human in transition and one that isn't. That you see a fixed species, and others one in transition, is an aesthetic choice; one that you defend by perpetuating a misrepresentation, a product of stupidity or dishonesty.
The point of this thread is to see whether you can accept that there is evidence for evolution that people who know what they are talking about present as evidence, rather than the nonsense put out by people determined to undermine evolution. I think you have made it clear that you don't understand that evidence is not proof, and that you believe accepting evidence for a theory commits you to that theory. As I have repeated, exactly the same evidence can support different theories. You don't have to accept any given theory, but if you have to lie about rival theories to protect your own, it doesn't say much about the theory you are protecting.

[Flannel Jesus]

After all that's said, you must know by now that you can't overcome someone who is willing themselves into a Dunning Kreuger situation. Someone who actively wants to ignorant can't be convinced not to be, my dude.

[Immanuel Can]

...Evolutionism thrives on being taken far too seriously by people who really should know better.

The only people who take "Evolutionism" seriously are creationists.

That's funny. I wish it were so.

...the idea that evolution predicts that we should be overwhelmed by chimera is a lie made up by religious fanatics.

No, it's just believing what Evolutionism would lead us to expect. The longer the timespans posited, the greater the variations within and between the human race we ought to find. Indeed, many "humanoid" things should no longer be interfertile, but have evolved into a different "humanoid" species altogether, if we believe Evolutionism. Yet we find only one universal humanity, all interfertile, with no evidence of cross-species transitioning at all. Even from an entirely secular or hard-nosed Materialist perspective, that fact calls for a scientific explanation...one we find that nobody has. If humans were evolving, there would have to be some scientific mechanism, spontaneously generated by randomness, that keeps all humanoids permanently within their species: and what would that be?

Find one species presently in transition. (And don't say, "they all are," because they're all manifestly not...

As I have said, there is no difference that you can discern by which you could distinguish between a human in transition and one that isn't.

The answer to that, Dr. Ockham, is the most simple one: they aren't evolving.

[Will Bouwman]

The only people who take "Evolutionism" seriously are creationists.

That's funny. I wish it were so.

Well, if it isn't, all you have to do is cite a paper by anyone who isn't a creationist using the term

...the idea that evolution predicts that we should be overwhelmed by chimera is a lie made up by religious fanatics.

No, it's just believing what Evolutionism would lead us to expect.

"Evolutionism" is a lie. The central premise that we should be knee deep in chimeras is not something any evolutionary biologist, who isn't also a religious nut, has ever claimed.

As I have said, there is no difference that you can discern by which you could distinguish between a human in transition and one that isn't.

The answer to that, Dr. Ockham, is the most simple one: they aren't evolving.

On the contrary, the simplest answer is that humans are evolving. That has the simplicity that you don't have to resort to claims that are not true, nor do you have to invent an absurd conspiracy theory about how the entire academic structure has been duped, or is active in promoting a lie. That instead, is what you are doing.
But again:

The point of this thread is to see whether you can accept that there is evidence for evolution that people who know what they are talking about present as evidence, rather than the nonsense put out by people determined to undermine evolution. I think you have made it clear that you don't understand that evidence is not proof, and that you believe accepting evidence for a theory commits you to that theory. As I have repeated, exactly the same evidence can support different theories. You don't have to accept any given theory, but if you have to lie about rival theories to protect your own, it doesn't say much about the theory you are protecting.

[Immanuel Can]

The only people who take "Evolutionism" seriously are creationists.

That's funny. I wish it were so.

Well, if it isn't, all you have to do is cite a paper by anyone who isn't a creationist using the term

Oh, I see what you mean. It's like when the proponents want you to forget to call it "the theory of evolution," and want it just to be called "evolution," so you'll think it's a fact that can't be questioned.

They don't call it "Evolutionism," because they are actually so darn naive they believe it's not an "-ism," a belief. They think it's "Science" or "truth." And they definitely don't want it questioned, the way you and I are doing right now. They just want it believed.

...the idea that evolution predicts that we should be overwhelmed by chimera is a lie made up by religious fanatics.

No, it's just believing what Evolutionism would lead us to expect.

"Evolutionism" is a lie.

I agree. Humans did not evolve. There's no evidence for it, and there's a horrendous lack of the evidence it tells us we ought to see. What else could it be?

As I have said, there is no difference that you can discern by which you could distinguish between a human in transition and one that isn't.

The answer to that, Dr. Ockham, is the most simple one: they aren't evolving.

On the contrary, the simplest answer is that humans are evolving.

What makes that theory "simple", in an Ockham sense? The simplest belief when there's a total lack of the necessary evidence is that the thing didn't happen.

[Age]

That's funny. I wish it were so.

Well, if it isn't, all you have to do is cite a paper by anyone who isn't a creationist using the term

Oh, I see what you mean. It's like when the proponents want you to forget to call it "the theory of evolution," and want it just to be called "evolution," so you'll think it's a fact that can't be questioned.

They don't call it "Evolutionism," because they are actually so darn naive they believe it's not an "-ism," a belief. They think it's "Science" or "truth." And they definitely don't want it questioned, the way you and I are doing right now. They just want it believed.

No, it's just believing what Evolutionism would lead us to expect.

"Evolutionism" is a lie.

I agree. Humans did not evolve. There's no evidence for it,

The very reason why 'this one' can not see any evidence for 'it' is because of the 'confirmation bias' 'this one' has, which is coming from its absolute belief that there is 'no evidence'.

Obviously people can not and will not 'see' what is completely against, in contrast of, or in opposition of what they believe is true.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, I'm torn. On the one hand there is a mountain of evidence, supported by who knows how many experts, in universities and museums around the world. On the other, there is a guy, who clearly has a creationist agenda, who will only accept evidence for a theory that is not predicted by that theory and keeps repeating what is an absurd conspiracy theory that all those experts are frauds or idiots.
I'm afraid you have failed to persuade me, Mr Can, and if you have no better refutation than something I know to be a lie, you never will.

[Pistolero]

How can human evolution be explained without subspecies, i.e., races?
If we accept natural selection, as the theory that best explains the multiplicity of life, how is one species exempt?

Population isolation, over time, environmental adversities, all contribute to the splintering of species from common ancestors....why does this not apply to man, when the evidence is clear...we can see it in appearance and in different athletic and academic performances?
Would admitting this truth compels us to be cruel, unjust, towards what is so obviously different?
What ethical standard or ideology urges us to ignore what we perceive, as entirely superficial or inconsequential....when it obviously is decisive?

No crime statistics, no academic statistics, no athletic statistics, no historical evidence, confirmed by ongoing behaviors...nothing can convince us to question our refusal....preferring to doubt our own sense and seek authorities to affirm what is comforting to us.

[Will Bouwman]

How can human evolution be explained without subspecies, i.e., races?

Where do you get this fuckwittery from?

If we accept natural selection, as the theory that best explains the multiplicity of life, how is one species exempt?

We're not.
Meanwhile:

Well, I'm torn. On the one hand there is a mountain of evidence, supported by who knows how many experts, in universities and museums around the world. On the other, there is a guy, who clearly has a creationist agenda, who will only accept evidence for a theory that is not predicted by that theory and keeps repeating what is an absurd conspiracy theory that all those experts are frauds or idiots.
I'm afraid you have failed to persuade me, Mr Can, and if you have no better refutation than something I know to be a lie, you never will.

What, apart from a book and a conspiracy theory, do you have to show that your version of creation is true?

[Pistolero]

How can human evolution be explained without subspecies, i.e., races?

Natural selection necessitated mediating phases....why are these missing in the human species....only in one species?

[Will Bouwman]

How can human evolution be explained without subspecies, i.e., races?

Natural selection necessitated mediating phases....why are these missing in the human species....only in one species?

They're not; we are a mediating phase.

[Pistolero]

We?
Europeans....Sub-Saharan Africans.....Orientals....

All branching out that were not finalized.
Yet, they produced different range of traits.
Both physical and psychological.

[Will Bouwman]

We?

Yup.

Europeans....Sub-Saharan Africans.....Orientals....

Even fuckwits.

All branching out that were not finalized.

Correct.

Yet, they produced different range of traits.
Both physical and psychological.

Exactly. Humans evolve to take advantage of evolutionary niches. Tibetans and Ethiopians have evolved different mechanisms to deal with rarified oxygen at high altitude. They are therefore better than Europeans, for example, at living on mountains. If that happens to be your criterion for superiority, they are superior to you.
As far as we know, none of the ongoing evolutionary processes have made any mating couple incompatible, and given the rarity of truly isolated populations, perhaps they never will.

[Pistolero]

Exactly. Humans evolve to take advantage of evolutionary niches. Tibetans and Ethiopians have evolved different mechanisms to deal with rarified oxygen at high altitude. They are therefore better than Europeans, for example, at living on mountains. If that happens to be your criterion for superiority, they are superior to you.
As far as we know, none of the ongoing evolutionary processes have made any mating couple incompatible, and given the rarity of truly isolated populations, perhaps they never will.

Yes, even nitwit admit this....only for one thing....Europeans were forced to migrate into more inhospitable environments, forcing them to naturally select the traits necessary to survive in more adverse circumstances, whereas the sub-Saharan Negroes remained in their original environments and faced no such pressures?

So, weakness is forced to endure.....or face extinction, during the Ice Age.
Forced to migrate southeast and southwest...into Europe and northern India, establishing the two major sub=groupings of INDO & EUROPEAN....represented by the linguistic family that caries their shared heritage.
What does not kill me..., remember?
It is theorized that the Indo-European tribes almost did go extinct.
This was the first near extinction event....the second being the Black Plague....and we are entering the third....caused by an ideological infection.

So, these populations, that were pressured to naturally selected traits like abstract thinking, to help them survive in more challenging environments, returned to conquer those that remained as they were, because necessity is the mother of invention.
These African populations tend to perform badly in cognitive tests, like IQ tests....or in anything that falls above their range of intellect, and so tend to occupy the lower strata of wealth...but perform better in athletics, or physical challenges.

Race is not a social construct, but a consequence of thousands of years of natural selection within diverse environments, selecting different traits.