Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RogueIsland

I said legitimate scientific evidence. I have read most of the books and articles actually, as well as having been taught evolution extensively in the course of obtaining several degrees in science.

I still have not seen legitimate evidence for evolution. All of the evidence so far is broad reaching conjecture based on a few bones and fossils that are not even complete. And if you read the history of evolution, much of the "scientific" evidence is faulty and some of it is downright fraud.


70 posted on 11/28/2005 5:54:58 AM PST by Mom MD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Mom MD
All of the evidence so far is broad reaching conjecture based on a few bones and fossils that are not even complete.

If that's your understanding to the Theory of Evolution, then I seriously doubt you have done even a limited review of the material.

72 posted on 11/28/2005 6:02:31 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Mom MD
If fossil bones aren't "legitimate" evidence, what are your thoughts on shared endogenous retrovirus insertions?

See Ichneumons massive post for more info

79 posted on 11/28/2005 6:10:53 AM PST by anguish (while science catches up.... mysticism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: Mom MD
I said legitimate scientific evidence. I have read most of the books and articles actually, as well as having been taught evolution extensively in the course of obtaining several degrees in science.

I still have not seen legitimate evidence for evolution. All of the evidence so far is broad reaching conjecture based on a few bones and fossils that are not even complete. And if you read the history of evolution, much of the "scientific" evidence is faulty and some of it is downright fraud.


Here is some legitimate evidence for you. Probably won't do any good; when your mind is made up already, you won't be able to even see it [Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein, 1973].


Homo erectus

Most paleontologists now believe that a second evolutionary pulse occurred around 1.9 million years ago that produced hominids with much larger brains. Homo erectus were the first hominids to not just be human-like, but human. They were hunters, speculates Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, and likely had the ability of some sort of speech, due to an enlarged Broca's area on their skulls. The face has protruding jaws, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a brain size ranging from 750 to 1225 cc. The skeletons are more robust than those of modern humans. Erectus likely had a very efficient walking style, and probably used fire as well. In addition, their stone tools are much better than those of habilis. Some of the most famous early archaeological finds were skeletal remains of Homo erectus, including the 1893 discovery "Java Man", the "Heidelberg Man", the "Peking Man", and the "Turkana Boy" shown in the picture on the right. Erectus also turned out to be the creater of many of the stone tools and Chellean handaxes found at the Olduvai site by the Leakeys, the so-called "Chellean Man". Erectus was likely the first hominid to spread across the world, as the migrated to China by 800,000 years ago and to Europe by 500,000. However, by 300,000 years ago they were to be replaced by a new hominid - Homo sapiens.


131 posted on 11/28/2005 7:55:25 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson