Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zinkovich 1. Here's the thing: The genesis of man, while an important issue, is not something someone needs to know to observe current observable processes, nor is it needed to look at fossil records and come to certain conclusions due to the progression of forms, and the fact that certain fossils are distinctly divided into certain eras and geographical locations. In other words, "the fundaments of enviroment" are not needed to be known to observe things beyond those fundaments. It's evolution. Not "The evolution". Yes, we certainly are. The lack of data on this issue, however, has no implications towards the evolutionary processes we currently observe and can see in the fossil record, other then the fact that if we found man was created that that creator would have also made evolution after the fact. In any other hypothesis evolution would come into play sooner or later as well, because it has been proven to occur in the now. 2. Data on how "debating evolution is like debating PC computing", and how biological information must be gathered from the ground up in chronological order of which each certain form came about in order to be understood, much like in programming architectures?

#1
I do not question an evolution as a process (itself), and I never did.
I have already pointed out (in my previous posts) that I am interested in Homo Sapiens evolution.

#2
I submitted PC computing for the following purpose :
- we (Homo Sapiens) have developed and created a computer, and we have all the data on that subject
- we (Homo Sapiens) have not developed and/or created ourselves, and we have a very little data on that subject

Along with the progress in Science and Technology, (I hope) we would find some answers to Homo Sapiens's Genesis.

[Zinkovich]

I do not question an evolution as a process (itself), and I never did. I have already pointed out (in my previous posts) that I am interested in Homo Sapiens evolution.

Here's some places to start:
A documentary I haven't gotten aorund to watching: Becoming Human: Paleoanthropology, Evolution and Human Origins
Hominid Species
Here's the tree so far: Human Ancestors Hall: Tree
A timeline: https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/atlas.html

I'd link you to some scholarly articles, if it wasn't for the fact that you would have to be going to a state college to have access to them for free-are you willing to pay money to get into the real research going on in biological anthropology?

I submitted PC computing for the following purpose : - we (Homo Sapiens) have developed and created a computer, and we have all the data on that subject - we (Homo Sapiens) have not developed and/or created ourselves, and we have a very little data on that subject

That was not what the original implications behind your analogy seemed to be. It's logical foundation attempts to suggest that we cannot speak with authority on evolutionary principles without knowing not only "Mankind's Genesis" but the "Genesis" of all of the early branches as well, which is prepostorous.

Data certianly isn't "little" when it comes to our(homo sapiens, SPECIFICALLY) development. Now the origin of early man is another story, but homo sapiens is not early man.

Tell me: Do you know of any homo sapiens fossils that stretch back to the same time as the earliest man?

You never answered my question about evolutions "limitations", nor have you answered my questions concerning there being "little to explore", nor have you answered my quesion about data on when this "speculation" starts. Why are you ignoring them, when they are in DIRECT response to things you have said, and are in no way inflammatory in nature?

[gallo]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 I do not question an evolution as a process (itself), and I never did.

"an evolution"??? So you were informed that "the Evolution" was incorrect; that "evolution" is sufficient, and you respond with "an evolution"? Please pay attention.

Quote by: Rainbow I have already pointed out (in my previous posts) that I am interested in Homo Sapiens evolution.

So it's OK to say that plants evolve, and elephants evolve, and polar bears evolve, but it's not OK to realize that Homo sapiens evolved just like all the rest. Do I understand you? Then why is it that humans have an identical genetic code and share about 99% of our genome with chimpanzees?

By the way, for the second time, in biological taxonomy, the genus is capitalized, the species is not. Thus it is Homo sapiens. Please try to learn at least the basics. Please pay attention.

Quote by: Rainbow #2 I submitted PC computing for the following purpose : - we (Homo Sapiens) have developed and created a computer, and we have all the data on that subject

Which has zilch to do with the topic. We also developed and created the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Petronas Towers, the Suez Canal, the Golden Gate Bridge, and on and on. What do any of them have to do with whatever point your are trying to make?

In fact, you are wrong. We do not have "all the data on that subject." We have a few subjective recollections of major developments. Most of the hardware doesn't even exist anymore, much less the software. Thus, we have stories rather than data. I worked in the field for 25 years, and some of my programs were used for about 20 years. Just a couple of years ago I worked with a former colleague and found that he was still using accounting algorithms that I developed more than 30 years ago. But I can't give you "all of the data" about any of it.

Quote by: Rainbow - we (Homo Sapiens) have not developed and/or created ourselves, and we have a very little data on that subject

Actually, we have quite a bit of data about the evolution of mankind. You just don't like it. Would you like to learn about it?

Quote by: Rainbow Along with the progress in Science and Technology, (I hope) we would find some answers to Homo Sapiens's Genesis.

Neither "Science" nor "Technology" are deities and thus do not need to be capitalized. Nor does "Genesis" require capitalization unless you are talking about the 1st book of the Bible.

Of course, we have found many answers about the genesis of H. sapiens. Again, it is a matter of the fact that you don't like the answers, or that you are too lazy to educate yourself. Would you like to learn?

It seems that you scamper away when I respond to you. Is it that you don't understand what I am saying? Or maybe it is that you are afraid to face the issues.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zinkovich Here's some paces to start with : That was not what the original implications behind your analogy seemed to be. It's logical foundation attempts to suggest that we cannot speak with authority on evolutionary principles without knowing not only "Mankind's Genesis" but the "Genesis" of all of the early branches as well, which is prepostorous. Data certianly isn't "little" when it comes to our(homo sapiens, SPECIFICALLY) development. Now the origin of early man is another story, but homo sapiens is not early man. Tell me: Do you know of any homo sapiens fossils that stretch back to the same time as the earliest man? You never answered my question about evolutions "limitations", nor have you answered my questions concerning there being "little to explore", nor have you answered my quesion about data on when this "speculation" starts. Why are you ignoring them, when they are in DIRECT response to things you have said, and are in no way inflammatory in nature?

#1
I followed the links.
What makes you think I was not familiar with that information ?
Here is the link for the latest discovery :
- Skeleton sheds light on ape-man species - Yahoo! News

#2
Are you suggesting I am suffering due to manic amnesia and/or mental, psychic disorder ? :-)
We know all about computers, since we are "the Creators". That is a huge difference.

We have no reliable, unquestionable data on Mankind origin. What am I to debate, then ?
That is exactly what Technosoul already wrote to you (not quotted).
The Science and Technology must be on much higher level (which we are lacking of, today), in order to verify the data on Homo Sapiens.

#3, #4, #5
See #2

We speculate on our alleged origins. Therefore I have my reservations on Homo Sapiens Genesis.

An example :
Ezekiel's encounter with God. Was that really "God" ?
Check this link :
- Forrer: Ezechiel-Faehre

I believe that we are the result of genetic experiment, while our alleged "ancestors" have not much in common with us (in reality), except they existed, dwelt, occupied, ect. planet Earth.

[Zinkovich]

I followed the links. What makes you think I was not familiar with that information ? Here is the link for the latest discovery : - Skeleton sheds light on ape-man species - Yahoo! News

You said there was a lack of data on Homo sapien's genesis, when in fact it is not modern man of whose ancestry is unknown, but in fact the earliest hominid species, which has an entirely different name then Homo sapiens.

Are you suggesting I am suffering due to manic amnesia and/or mental, psychic disorder ? :-) We know all about computers, since we are "the Creators". That is a huge difference.

Yes, it is a huge difference, and that is why your analogy earlier did not apply. Sorry :(

We have no reliable, unquestionable data on Mankind origin. What am I to debate, then ? That is exactly what Technosoul already wrote to you (not quotted). The Science and Technology must be on much higher level (which we are lacking of, today), in order to verify the data on Homo Sapiens.

We have fossils of earlier devolomental forms. That seems at least a step in the right direction when it comes to reliable evidence.

I am not suggesting any of those things, but rather do not understand why you completely pass over my questions in favor of your own.

We speculate on our alleged origins. Therefore I have my reservations on Homo Sapiens Genesis. An example : Ezekiel's encounter with God. Was that really "God" ? Check this link : - Forrer: Ezechiel-Faehre.

Here's a better question: Did the story of Ezekiel even happen?

I believe that we are the result of genetic experiment, while our alleged "ancestors" have not much in common with us (in reality), except they existed, dwelt, occupied, ect. planet Earth.

And where's your hard data to prove this?

If they are entirely seperate, why are their genes/forms almost entirely identical to ours except in very paticular distinct ways? Such a relation seems to imply genetic kinship, do you not agree?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zinkovich You said there was a lack of data on Homo sapien's genesis, when in fact it is not modern man of whose ancestry is unknown, but in fact the earliest hominid species, which has an entirely different name then Homo sapiens. Yes, it is a huge difference, and that is why your analogy earlier did not apply. Sorry :( Here's a better question: Did the story of Ezekiel even happen? And where's your hard data to prove this? If they are entirely seperate, why are their genes/forms almost entirely identical to ours except in very paticular distinct ways? Such a relation seems to imply genetic kinship, do you not agree?

#1
I do not think Homo Sapiens has its roots linked to "Lucy" and/or alike.

#2
The difference :
- we have no clue on our origin
- we know all about computers
"The Creator" is a core factor.

#3
Read the Bible with concern to Ezekiel.
You will find his encounters with "God" along with descriptions, events, ect.

#4
There is no such data.
Except for some speculations, I have no definitive answer to that. (We need to develope a technology in order to manipulate time, space, ect. and I think it is a matter of time we will accomplish that task - coutersy of computer technology.)

It could be true.
However, those guys had not developed almost anything, except for farting in caves, rocks, ect. and/or scanning their noses.

[gallo]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 I do not think Homo Sapiens has its roots linked to "Lucy" and/or alike.

For the third time, it is Homo sapiens. If you're going to pretend to engage in scientific discussion, at least pretend that you know the basics.

What you think about "Lucy" is irrelevant since you don't know much about the subject. Clearly you don't understand the concept of transitional forms. You see, no one claims that "Lucy" is ancestral to H. sapiens, or as you clumsily express it, "has its roots linked." Of course "Lucy" is a single fossil specimen of a paleontological species, Australopithecus afarensis, and that species was more likely not on a direct line of descent to modern mankind. After all, it's been some 3 million years.

Quote by: Rainbow #2 The difference : - we have no clue on our origin - we know all about computers "The Creator" is a core factor.

Nonsense. We have a lot of information about our origin. And, of course, most of computer development too place in my lifetime. Of course we know about it. Define: "The Creator", and core factor. It seems gibberish.

Quote by: Rainbow #3 Read the Bible with concern to Ezekiel. You will find his encounters with "God" along with descriptions, events, ect.

Which doesn't mean that it isn't mythology, which it most certainly is. By the way, did you mean "etc."?

Quote by: Rainbow #4 There is no such data.

Right. In other words, you believe things for which there is no evidence - Bible, space men, etc.

Quote by: Rainbow Except for some speculations, I have no definitive answer to that. (We need to develope a technology in order to manipulate time, space, ect. and I think it is a matter of time we will accomplish that task - coutersy of computer technology.)

Did you mean "develop?" Did you mean "etc." again? Did you mean "courtesy?"

You don't seem to have a definitive answer for much of anything. Just a lot of non-knowledge and beliefs.

Quote by: Rainbow It could be true. However, those guys had not developed almost anything, except for farting in caves, rocks, ect. and/or scanning their noses.

What guys? Why would you expect different?

By the way, I notice that you're off topic.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: gallo For the third time, it is Homo sapiens. Nonsense. We have a lot of information about our origin. And, of course, most of computer development too place in my lifetime. Of course we know about it. Define: "The Creator", and core factor. It seems gibberish.

#1
:-)
For n time :
- try to figure out the etymology for Homo Sapiens
(Hint : not English language origin - including etymology itself)

#2
Kindly post the origin for Homo Sapiens, please.
Neither assumptions, speculations nor gibberish, acceptable. Data that clearly points out and/or unquestionably indicates it, only.
(Royal Stockholm Academy would be delighted, at least, not to mention all the planet Earth's inhabitants.)

[Jack]

including ethymology itself

Did you mean "etymology"?

Kindly post the origin for Homo Sapiens, please.

Kindly note that most of us who believe in science over religion are more than willing to admit we don't know. That's one of the things that sets science apart from religion. Religion pretends to have all the answers. Science doesn't.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood Did you mean "etymology"? Kindly note that most of us who believe in science over religion are more than willing to admit we don't know. That's one of the things that sets science apart from religion. Religion pretends to have all the answers. Science doesn't.

#1
I am not a typist.
Thank you :-)

#2
That is not the issue, here.

Religious or Scientific appraoch ?
I am not interested in any of them. Just clear data, only :
- who are we or what are we, along with the origin

None of us has the data on our origin, except for some speculations, assumptions, ect.
(What gallo is trying to prove, then ? )

[Jack]

Religious or Scientific appraoch ? I am not interested in any of them. Just clear data, only : - who are we or what are we, along with the origin

Clear data? Give an example of any kind of data on evolution or pre-history that didn't originate with either science or theology.

[gallo]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 For n time : - try to figure out the etymology for Homo Sapiens (Hint : not English language origin - including etymology itself)

What a stunning demonstration of ignorance. In the Linnean system of taxonomy, the genus is capitalized while the species is not. That's why the peppered moth is Biston betularia, the forest tent caterpillar is Malacosoma disstrea, the Polar bear is Ursus maritimus, and mankind is Homo sapiens. It doesn't matter what the etymology of the words is (Latin meaning "wise man" - but irrelevant), you are using it incorrectly. In the Linnean binomial taxonomic system the species is not, and is never, capitalized. Once again, you are wrong and are continuing to make a fool of yourself. It is what is usually called intentional ignorance. The fourth time you have been instructed in some elementry knowledge that you lack and still you fail to learn.

Quote by: Rainbow #2 Kindly post the origin for Homo Sapiens, please. Neither assumptions, speculations nor gibberish, acceptable. Data that clearly points out and/or unquestionably indicates it, only.

Sure. As soon as you post your all of your ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve. Your demand is silly and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. Besides, the way your demand is stated is amounts to meaningless gibberish.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 I am not a typist. Thank you :-)

And only semi-literate.

Quote by: Rainbow #2 That is not the issue, here.

Yes it is. Are you so dense that you don't realize that?

Quote by: Rainbow Religious or Scientific appraoch ? I am not interested in any of them. Just clear data, only : - who are we or what are we, along with the origin

Of course you aren't interested in science. You would have to actually learn in that case and you seem eminently incapable of that. What is "clear data". Data either is or it isn't.

Quote by: Rainbow None of us has the data on our origin, except for some speculations, assumptions, ect. (What gallo is trying to prove, then ? )

Nonsense. What is it that you think I'm trying to prove? Why is it that you are so profoundly ignorant of science that you aren't aware that it isn't about proof? Why are you so ignorant that you aren't aware that no one claims to have all the answers. I could give you lots of data - quite clear data - but you wouldn't be able to understand. I listed some some books so that you might learn, but you aren't willing to do that. It seems that you are the only one here who knows the answers.

By the way, check the topic title at the top of the thread. You are off topic.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood Clear data? Give an example of any kind of data on evolution or pre-history that didn't originate with either science or theology.

You have answered to my question, yourself.
Neither Science nor Theology has the answer for Homo Sapiens' origin.

Quote by: gallo Nonsense. What is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

You have no answer to my question, regardless of your relentless and/or senseless efforts to portay yourself as highly educated individual in almost all the fields.
As a matter of fact, no one has the answer to my question. What your post is all about, then ?

[gallo]

Quote by: Rainbow You have answered to my question, yourself.

Was that English?

Quote by: Rainbow Neither Science nor Theology has the answer for Homo Sapiens' origin.

You seem able to follow convention in correctly using italics for a biological species, but you seem incapable of learning anything new. For the 4th time, in biological taxonomy the genus is capitalized, the species is not. Thus, it is Homo sapiens. Your failure to learn does not reflect well on your intelligence.

Quote by: Rainbow You have no answer to my question, regardless of your relentless and/or senseless efforts to portay yourself as highly educated individual in almost all the fields.

Certainly more educated than you. But I have made no efforts to "portay" myself as anything. I was merely correcting your dismal errors of logic and fact.

Quote by: Rainbow As a matter of fact, no one has the answer to my question.

But you haven't answered my question. Please list every one of your ancestors leading all the way back to Adam. It should be easy since you think it is only a span of about 6000 years rather than the span of years you are requesting.

Quote by: Rainbow What your post is all about, then ?

Trying to help you learn. You don't seem interested.

I'll give you some data of which I am aware.

Several skulls and other fossils were recently discovered at Herto, Ethiopia. These skulls are at the very extreme or just beyond the range of human variability in several characteristics. In these characteristics, they resemble the extreme ranges of variation in older, archaic hominids. The Herto fossils are 160,000 years old. Moreover, in the same area of Ethiopia, fossils that are about 190,000 years old have been found that are completely within the range of variability of modern humans. Thus, it is easily apparent that a highly variable population of humans lived in Ethiopia during that period.

Many quite modern human fossils, that have been dated to around 100,000 years ago, have been found in the Levant. It seems that these populations co-existed with Neandertal populations in the area.

That is followed by the many examples of Cro-Magnon man that have been found in Europe. Cro-Magnon man is indistinguishable from modern man except that Cro-Magnon had a statistically insignificant larger average brain size. Cro-Magnon man first appeared about 40,000 years ago.

Of course, other evidence of Homo sapiens has been found throughout the world since then.

So there you go. The origins of Homo sapiens, since all of the above have been classified as such.

By the way, did I mention that you are off topic? Can you read the topic of the first post?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: gallo Certainly more educated than you. But I have made no efforts to "portay" myself as anything. I was merely correcting your dismal errors of logic and fact. But you haven't answered my question. Please list every one of your ancestors leading all the way back to Adam. It should be easy since you think it is only a span of about 6000 years rather than the span of years you are requesting. Trying to help you learn. You don't seem interested. I'll give you some data of which I am aware. Several skulls and other fossils were recently discovered at Herto, Ethiopia ...

#1
Remarkable expression :-)
"Certainly more educated than you".
This sentence (alone) indicates something quite opposite.

#2
Who is Adam ?
Do you mean biblical Adam ? If "yes" then you can not be serious, by taking biblical Adam literally.

Other than that, I know all my family ancestors names, reaching times even prior Columbus' discovery. I find no reason to publish that information.

#3
Is there a particular reason you assume I am not familiar with the subject you are trying to help me with ?
You may be rested assured, I graduated a high-school.

P.S.
- What is the reason to underline mistyping, among other off-topic activity ?
Yes, I typed the word "portay", instead of "portray". What is so exciting about it ?

- Homo Sapiens does not mean "wise man", as you posted.

I am not going to participate in sort of academic debates and answer you word-by-word. It is good for kindergarten audience, at local pubs, ect. I do it exclusively, this time only.

I post these few examples, so you can follow up and find all other answers on your own.
I hope all the "irregularities" have been cleared up. No more word-by-word technique is going to be applied. Complaints ? to yourself.

[Jack]

- Homo Sapiens does not mean "wise man", as you posted.

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapien

"Certainly more educated than you". This sentence (alone) indicates something quite opposite.

You may be rested assured, I graduated a high-school.

One has to wonder.

[gallo]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 Remarkable expression :-) "Certainly more educated than you". This sentence (alone) indicates something quite opposite.

No it doesn't. It indicates that it is my impression that you are not very educated and that I have more education than you. What kind of cognitive disconnect would make you think that "Certainly more educated than you" means that I am less educated than you?

Quote by: Rainbow #2 Who is Adam ? Do you mean biblical Adam ? If "yes" then you can not be serious, by taking biblical Adam literally.

No, I don't take him literally. It's just mythology. But you creationists usually do. It's hard to tell what your point is, since it is taking you so long to get there. It's starting to look like you may be some sort of progressive creationist.

Quote by: Rainbow Other than that, I know all my family ancestors names, reaching times even prior Columbus' discovery. I find no reason to publish that information.

I doubt it anyway, so don't bother. Knowing such geneology would be quite rare. Anyway, I've got you beat since my family has been traced back to the mid 1300s.

Quote by: Rainbow #3 Is there a particular reason you assume I am not familiar with the subject you are trying to help me with ? You may be rested assured, I graduated a high-school.

I'm surprised. You don't seem that educated. But that limited education explains why you are having such difficulty with some complex concepts. Generally a high school graduate can grasp the concept of the binomial taxonomic naming system. You don't seem to be able to grasp it. It makes you look uneducated and foolish.

After high school, I graduated 5 more times from colleges and universities. That's why I suspected that I am more educated than you.

Quote by: Rainbow P.S. - What is the reason to underline mistyping, among other off-topic activity ? Yes, I typed the word "portay", instead of "portray". What is so exciting about it ?

Because you don't mistype, you misspell. You appear only semi-literate.

Quote by: Rainbow Homo Sapiens does not mean "wise man", as you posted.

Besides misspelling, you also misuse words. You seem to be quite a slow learner. Your use of the species name is incorrect. This will be the 5th time that I have instructed you in the most basic knowledge. The genus name is always capitalized while the species name is never capitalized. It is common scientific usage and has been so since the mid 1700s. I am familiar with the binomial system of scientific taxonomy due to the fact that I used the system frequently while earning my B.S. and M.S. degrees in biology.

The origin of the taxonomic binomial name for mankind, Homo sapiens, comes from Latin. (Sometimes taxonomic names are latinized Greek, English, or other languages, or place names, or even a person's name.) It is homo meaning man, and sapiens, the participle of the new Latin (i.e., not classical Latin) verb sapio, sapere, sapivi. The participle is sapiens, sapentis. In Latin usage it carried the meaning to know, to think, to be wise. Thus, in English, Homo sapiens means "thinking man" (notice the participle), or "knowing" or "wise man". I am familiar with this because a minor in Latin is a component of one of my 5 graduations after high school, my B.A. degree.

Quote by: Rainbow I am not going to participate in sort of academic debates and answer you word-by-word. It is good for kindergarten audience, at local pubs, ect. I do it exclusively, this time only.

Did you mean "etc."? Of course you aren't going to engage in any sort of academic debate. Clearly you aren't up to the task. You will continue to cut and run when asked to defend your position or when your errors of knowledge are pointed out.

Quote by: Rainbow