Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[gnostic]

there was nothing new to theists about the concept of a beginning of creation, of everything, that's exactly why atheists hated the BB, once again, their complaint, not mine

You are generalising.

Can you name one atheist here at RF, that have rejected or hate the Big Bang model?

You are making false claim.

You have single out one atheist - Hoyle - and you think that it can be applied to all atheists.

Sorry, but this is total BS. I am agnostic, not atheist, but I can see you are twisting everything around, without seeing reality. You should stop putting your head in the sand, and ask any atheist RF member if he reject or hate BB, and you will see how ignorantly biased and wrong you are.

I have already you this question before, but you have been silent or worse evasive.

Do you know of any atheist here at RF, who has favor Hoyle's Steady State model over the Big Bang model?​

Please answer this one question above, honestly, without sidestepping it.

 

[metis]

Entropy is a factor in every tiny picture of an atom at every nanosecond, they would wind down very quickly under simple laws, without forces specifically keeping them alive in particular configurations that ultimately describe solar systems, planets and habitats for life

same with life, there is no simple law of 'classical' evolution that has anything stopping life simply decaying into it's simplest form, complex life eating itself out of food, bacteria taking over plants and animals, then eating themselves into oblivion. But like the atom, and the rich structures they are instructed to produce, life constantly battles entropy, becomes more rich and complex

So, right after you were were born, you decayed and returned to dust. Well then, whose post am I reading?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

There are many "repulsive" things in the world including (but not limited to) stupidity and ignorance. Neither "National Supremacy" nor "Bloody Tooth and Claw Survival of the Fittest" have anything to do with either Evolution or Darwinism,

That is what makes empiricist cultists because Darwin called it a law of nature by converting a social/political commentary based on inferior/superior races and introduced it as an aggressive doctrine where once evolutionary sciences existed without the need for that type of a cause. I don't care whether you try to rewrite history, the first source narratives speak for themselves. People who are not afraid to read it should be astonished that such a correlation could be made but it did happen so read the two passages again in that light -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, right after you were were born, you decayed and returned to dust. Well then, whose post am I reading?

Well I have a couple of things that don't work so well any more, how about you?

But as you know, the fact we didn't quickly turn to dust was because of a constant battle against entropy, constant regeneration inside our bodies

 

[Sapiens]

That is what makes empiricist cultists because Darwin called it a law of nature by converting a social/political commentary based on inferior/superior races and turned it into an aggressive doctrine where evolutionary sciences existed without the need for that type of a cause. I don't care whether you try to rewrite history, the first source narratives speak for themselves. People who are not afraid to read it should be astonished that such a correlation could be made but it did happen so read the two passages again in that light -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

You are making an unsupportable leap for reasons known only to you. You have a preconceived conclusions that you will attempt to herd all the cats toward but you're not making progress.

You have failed to address anything I said, all you have done is repeat what you posted previously and simple repetition does make it any more correct. Hmm ... as I recall that was Joseph Gobbels' approach ... the Big Lie, are you a closet Nazi?

 

[Sapiens]

Learn to keep your stupid mouth shut until you know what you are talking about -

and you plan on forcing me to do so how?

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

Law of nature indeed !.

If you'd find the energy to read both Darwin and Malthus you'd know that the "law of nature" (rather different from a law of science) that Darwin was referring to was the Malthusian model of of maximal arithmetic resource growth contrasted with maximal geometric potential population growth. That was the engine that he said fueled Natural Selection.

You believe what you have to but biological evolution will always be cause neutral apart from positive rather than aggressive influences such as attraction, terrestrial science influences such as those that wiped out the dinosaurs and things like that but shoving biological evolution into a social/political necessities is dangerous and stupid or have you not read Hitler's comments linking national supremacy with the so-called 'laws of motion'.

Care to retype that sentence in English so that people might actually understand what you got wrong?

If I want your brand of evolution I look at your cretinous agenda based on jargon spouting nonsense and an intellectual pretense couched in academic fantasy. You should be ashamed of yourselves but your problem is generational and not easy to deal with.

Wow, very "Christian" of you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is what makes empiricist cultists because Darwin called it a law of nature by converting a social/political commentary based on inferior/superior races and introduced it as an aggressive doctrine where once evolutionary sciences existed without the need for that type of a cause. I don't care whether you try to rewrite history, the first source narratives speak for themselves. People who are not afraid to read it should be astonished that such a correlation could be made but it did happen so read the two passages again in that light -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

"Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the
shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians,
brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in
war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged
themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them
to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions
abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation,
and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis
Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame
of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the
great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it
till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and
even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the
means of supporting it." Thomas Malthus

Oh boy. Another quote miner. Yay.

 

[shawn001]

Guy's post of "let alone controversial and indirectly deduced theories like evolution,"

Sums up his complete lack of knowledge in the matters. For him his beliefs trump the facts.



Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[shawn001]

The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museum hall at the Smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.



Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.

Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.

3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.

Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.

Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.

Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!


Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.

As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.

This ancient heritage is yours.

Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide


a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin



New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution



Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily



DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time




One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.

It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?


It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving

A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving


There are billions of facts that support evolution, not just in biology either but the history of the planet.

Which is one reason


Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American


its also how

Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus".

 

[shawn001]

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution


The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

"
The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the Church will admit. It will say that such attitudes owe much to a fear of perceived threats to Christianity.


Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph


Vatican Gives Darwin a Big Birthday Hug, Leaving Creationists on the Fringes

Some religious leaders may take issue with Charles Darwin and what he represents, but the Vatican has announced that it is officially on board with evolution. A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi [Times Online]. Both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas recognized that life changes slowly over time, Ravasi said, and that was a step towards comprehending evolution.

The Vatican’s effort to show that science is not incompatible withreligion will culminate in a conference on evolution next month, organized to mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s landmark publication, On the Origin of Species. The Vatican has backed away slightly from its original proposal to completely ban discussion of intelligent design at the event, which organizers called “poor theology and poor science”. [Instead,] Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said [Times Online].

Vatican Gives Darwin a Big Birthday Hug, Leaving Creationists on the Fringes - 80beats : 80beats

 

[shawn001]

I an not a Buddhist but.

As you can see from the Pew Trust chart below, Buddhists on the whole (81% of them) think that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on Earth.

In fact of all the religious traditions included on the chart, Buddhists are the most accepting of evolution, with evangelical Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses being the least accepting.

Those of us who value an objective and evidence-based (read “scientific”) understanding of the world are greatly disturbed by attempts to displace sound science from the classroom, to introduce spurious ideas such as “creation science” and “Intelligent Design,” and to give the impression that evolution is somehow scientifically controversial, when in fact it’s backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence from all branches of science."

Four reasons Buddhists can love evolution | Wildmind Buddhist Meditation

 

[Bunyip]

I already given you the text of Darwin where he converts a social doctrine based on national supremacy into a biological evolutionary necessity and as a 'law of nature'. I suggest you take the Christian route that attraction rather than territorial aggression makes for a more intelligent and colorful existence if looking for a cause is your thing, it is also the most human approach.

You only get one shot at the title son and my point has truly been made regarding the disastrous consequences which descended on Europe for imposing the idea that natural 'laws ' govern the motion of the planets or the behavior of people in an utterly perverted take of 'as above then so below' -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

You people are both dangerous and stupid.

Speaking of stupid and dangerous - you have mistaken evolution for social Darwinism, which came much later and has nothing to do with Darwin other then the name. The NAZI who were big fans of social Darwinism outlawed and burnt Darwin's book, they did not advocate for it.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Speaking of stupid and dangerous - you have mistaken evolution for social Darwinism, which came much later and has nothing to do with Darwin other then the name. The NAZI who were big fans of social Darwinism outlawed and burnt Darwin's book, they did not advocate for it.

There is no such thing as 'social' Darwinism, that empiricist borrowed directly from a social/political commentary of Malthus and converted the description of national supremacy into a 'law of nature' or that aggressive 'survival of the fittest' notion . The National Socialists could appeal to these empirical laws as a natural right coming from a natural law that extended from orbital dynamics to human subjugation and even annihilation of those they considered weak and inferior.

Read it as it all belongs to you -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

Dangerous,stupid and just as unrepentant as the old Nazi were, the only thing worse is the inaction of the Christian Churches in allowing this damnable ideology to spread like a virus. Evolutionary geology and evolutionary biology existed for centuries before a social/political ideology was inserted into evolutionary sciences and despite the knowledge that attraction has many forms in getting rid of any type of inferior/superior motive as anyone can see through their normal daily existence.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no such thing as 'social' Darwinism, that empiricist borrowed directly from a social/political commentary of Malthus and converted the description of national supremacy into a 'law of nature' or that aggressive 'survival of the fittest' notion . The National Socialists could appeal to these empirical laws as a natural right coming from a natural law that extended from orbital dynamics to human subjugation and even annihilation of those they considered weak and inferior.

Read it as it all belongs to you -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler




Dangerous,stupid and just as unrepentant as the old Nazi were, the only thing worse is the inaction of the Christian Churches in allowing this damnable ideology to spread like a virus.

Here's your major logical catastrophy; If Darwin were a serial killing pervert - evolution would remain just as true. His failings are irrelevant to the theory, as were Newtons.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Here's your major logical catastrophy; If Darwin were a serial killing pervert - evolution would remain just as true. His failings are irrelevant to the theory, as were Newtons.

Read it and you get your natural rights through 'laws of nature' as an experiment called World War II. Tell me how that turned out and what it cost in terms of human misery.

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

Biological and geological evolution have always existed in tandem, a once wonderful excursion through history with clues as to how life developed from simple forms to more complex.

 

[Bunyip]

Read it and you get your natural rights through natural 'laws' as an experiment called World War II. Tell me how that turned out and what it cost.

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

Yes mate, Hitler - the loony who banned Darwins book. You have swapped sides. He was AGAINST teaching evolution.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Yes mate, Hitler - the loony who banned Darwins book. You have swapped sides. He was AGAINST teaching evolution.

You can't even manage to correlate the Sun moving from horizon to horizon within each 24 hour day with a single rotation of the planet due to your idiotic empirical adherence to the 'laws of motion' so it is no wonder that a disastrous ideology of social/political supremacy would find itself as a 'law of nature' and bound together as a basis for conquering other nations and annihilating people considered weak -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

I come from one of those 'savage races' but I assure you it was the efforts of those savage people who defeated that empirical doctrine of the 'law of nature' which National Socialism appealed to and I don't care if you read it or not, it still hasn't been fully buried -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

It was Malthus is in his stupid and cheerful way that incorporated empirical doctrine into social/political justification for subjugation of people and extended by Darwin to all of nature -

"If this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science.
The whole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be
destroyed. We may shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no
longer be of any use to read it. The wildest and most improbable
conjectures may be advanced with as much certainty as the most just
and sublime theories, founded on careful and reiterated experiments.
We may return again to the old mode of philosophizing, and make facts
bend to systems, instead of establishing systems upon facts. The grand
and consistent theory of Newton, will be placed upon the same footing
as the wild and eccentric hypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the
laws of nature are thus fickle and inconstant; if it can be affirmed,
and be believed, that they will change, when for ages and ages they
have appeared immutable, the human mind will no longer have any
incitements to inquiry, but must remain fixed in inactive torpor, or
amuse itself only in bewildering dreams and extravagant fancies."
Malthus

Empiricists, at least those who can type a paragraph, are stupid,dangerous and have no sense of integrity much less spirit. The Christian Churches must take responsibility for no individual can turn back the tide no more than the 'laws of nature' were used by the National Socialists to justify their vile actions could be dealt with anything but a huge and concerted effort.

 

[gnostic]

You can't even manage to correlate the Sun moving from horizon to horizon within each 24 hour day with a single rotation of the planet due to your idiotic empirical adherence to the 'laws of motion' so it is no wonder that a disastrous ideology of social/political supremacy would find itself as a 'law of nature' and bound together as a basis for conquering other nations and annihilating people considered weak -

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease,
accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

I come from one of those 'savage races' but I assure you it was the efforts of those savage people who defeated that the doctrine of the 'law of nature' which National Socialism appealed to and I don't care if you read it or not, it still hasn't been fully buried -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

You are the guy who can't manage to associate the Sun moving from horizon to horizon each 24 hour day with a single rotation of the planet along with all the other dopes mesmerized by the 'laws of motion'. It was Malthus is in his stupid and cheerful way that incorporated empirical doctrine into social/political justification for subjugation of people and extended by Darwin to all of nature -

"If this be the case, there is at once an end of all human science.
The whole train of reasonings from effects to causes will be
destroyed. We may shut our eyes to the book of nature, as it will no
longer be of any use to read it. The wildest and most improbable
conjectures may be advanced with as much certainty as the most just
and sublime theories, founded on careful and reiterated experiments.
We may return again to the old mode of philosophizing, and make facts
bend to systems, instead of establishing systems upon facts. The grand
and consistent theory of Newton, will be placed upon the same footing
as the wild and eccentric hypotheses of Descartes. In short, if the
laws of nature are thus fickle and inconstant; if it can be affirmed,
and be believed, that they will change, when for ages and ages they
have appeared immutable, the human mind will no longer have any
incitements to inquiry, but must remain fixed in inactive torpor, or
amuse itself only in bewildering dreams and extravagant fancies."
Malthus

Empiricists are stupid,dangerous and have no sense of integrity much less spirit. The Christian Churches must take responsibility for no individual can turn back the tide no more than the 'laws of nature' were used by the National Socialists to justify their vile actions could be dealt with anything but a huge and concerted effort.

Damn it! Where's that facepalm?!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

so they make a living as atheists, sell books, do TV appearances, and lecture as atheists.. but their staunch belief in atheism is in NO WAY is connected to their own work that they themselves describe as 'making God redundant'!?!? come off it Monk!

The science stands on its own without any call to atheism or god. The fact that they view their work as making god redundant (and this is only one actually that has said this) makes no sway over the legitimacy of their work. If what they had contributed in any way was inherently biased without evidence for their bias, it would be called on during peer review. As I have said before most of them claim that their atheism comes from conclusions based upon science (thought not established or held by science). All of the atheists you have mentioned have gone on record stating they don't believe because there simply is not evidence of god. And that is more or less the same thing for all atheists. I know there are exceptions to this but they are rare.

Also I find it interesting that Hawking was at one time not an atheist and has since changed his opinion because of a lack of evidence. He was a well established scientists well before he was an Atheist.

Again Lemaitre went out of his way to stop even other people connecting his theory with his beliefs, far less spouting it all over popular media himself, there is no comparison.

Thats great. What of the thousands upon tens of thousands of religious individuals making their work about god? Especially the ones fabricating evidence and pushing fake science to prove it? If we are going to go after your view of who is the heralds of Atheism rather than the science community in general why not go after the religious fundamentalists as an apt comparison?

And again, any contributions anyone makes in science must stand on its own or it will be thrown out. No one, theist or atheist, gets a free pass on a theory to further an ideology or political goal.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museum hall at the Smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.



Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.

Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.

3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.

Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.

Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.

Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!


Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.

As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.

This ancient heritage is yours.

Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide


a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin



New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution



Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily



DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time




One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.

It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?


It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.


They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving

A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving


There are billions of facts that support evolution, not just in biology either but the history of the planet.

Which is one reason


Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American


its also how

Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a "Chickenosaurus".

[It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?]

[our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record]

like I said, controversial and indirectly deduced, doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it unquestionable fact either.

classical physics was far less controversial, far more directly observable, and turned out to be fundamentally incapable of explaining the physical world.

Like most I was taught to believe in evolution at school, and became more skeptical the more learned for myself