Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

So what colour was the first humans Now? !
or is this still part of Africa propaganda agendor?

We all came from stuff growing in asteroids.
it can grow in a asteroid for millions of years.
I read about this in a university book from 1945.

a reply to: Consvoli

Well, there needs to be some sort of conclusion based off the evidence we have. And it's that modern primates, and humans evolved from African ancestors.

The main problem myself, and others have with the going into Africa hypothesis, is that for one yes, it tends to be muddled up with political nonsense, but if that happens its best to remind we are talking about millions of years, so it doesn't matter. And secondly we find fossils of potential hominins or hominids outside Africa that resemble later stages of their evolution, closely resembling chimpanzees and Bonobos, that's fine, but where are their ancient ancestors outside of Africa? We only find them in Africa, for example Nyanzapithecus ales.

That would suggest that there may have been constant migration too and from Africa. All these old fossils keep popping up just north of Africa as well, take that into account.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Consvoli

Well, there needs to be some sort of conclusion based off the evidence we have. And it's that modern primates, and humans evolved from African ancestors.

The main problem myself, and others have with the going into Africa hypothesis, is that for one yes, it tends to be muddled up with political nonsense, but if that happens its best to remind we are talking about millions of years, so it doesn't matter. And secondly we find fossils of potential hominins or hominids outside Africa that resemble later stages of their evolution, closely resembling chimpanzees and Bonobos, that's fine, but where are their ancient ancestors outside of Africa? We only find them in Africa, for example Nyanzapithecus ales.

That would suggest that there may have been constant migration too and from Africa. All these old fossils keep popping up just north of Africa as well, take that into account.

I understand there is a lot of evidence for the African origin of hominins but that's far from being conclusive. Although I agree on this part I disagree the science is settled because and there is evidence of potential hominins predating the ones in Africa. It's how much you want to stretch the definition of a hominin.

Archaeology and anthropology are not exact sciences (if we assume they are sciences) and even if I was an anthropologist I wouldn't be able to conclude based on the evidence. Maybe leaving towards one hypothesis but that's not enough to make a conclusion.

Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.”(1) In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes.(2) Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.(3)

Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”(4) Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”(5) However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”(6)

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”(7)

Why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes (Latin: pithecus; whereas the Latin word for human is homo)? Why has no fossil been named pithecus-homo (ape-man)? They used to use the term “ape-men” all the time when telling their stories.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

References:

1. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins​—Taxonomies, Fossils and Egos,” by Robin Derricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.

2. Nature, “A New Species of Great Ape From the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono, Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw, and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007, p. 921.

3. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.

4. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil​—But a Missing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead, May 30, 2009, p. 18.

5. The Guardian, London, “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution,” by James Randerson, May 19, 2009.

6. New Scientist, May 30, 2009, pp. 18-19.

7. Critique of Anthropology, Volume 29(2), p. 202.

Where are the “links”?

Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” (Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.” (Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.” (Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.)

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠ (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.) He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And nothing noteworthy has changed in the behaviour of those working in this field since then. Ecclesiastes 1:9,10:

9 What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?

It already existed from long ago;

It already existed before our time.

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.” (The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.) (so nowadays they put everything on a side-line leading nowhere, so much for the evidence for Stephen Jay Gould's claim that: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.” Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.)

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.” (Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.) Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

Henry Gee is a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the journal Nature. In other words, a man with his finger on the buttons and the stamp of approval that says “peer reviewed” over at Nature magazine, a figurative 'stamp' often used without any serious peer review having taken place (as long as the article for submission follows the approved “bedtime story” of evolution and based on the name and reputation of the one or ones submitting them; involving a lot of friendship politics, granted, that's a direct translation from a Dutch term that is translated as “cronyism” by Google translate).

Regarding the quotation from Isaac Newton below, remember that what was called “natural philosophy” in his time is now called “science”, and some have argued that it was what Newton described as “experimental philosophy” that gave rise to “modern science”.

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (and certainly not untestable, unverifiable fancy “bedtime” stories* that only sound plausible to the biased and/or indoctrinated beholder who wants to believe them or at least pretend that they do cause their careers depend on it; *: i.e. unverified philosophies/ideas)

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Also keep in mind that the English word “science” is derived from the Latin scientia meaning “knowledge”, which is also still a synonym for “science”. Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. So it concerns things that are factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. Otherwise, it is not science/knowledge, but falls within the realm of philosophy (unverified philosophies/ideas and stories).

Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

“Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)

Synonyms for "right" and "wrong", are "true/correct" and "false/incorrect" respectively. Of course, right and wrong also carry a moral meaning.

Still "nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9,10):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

a reply to: whereislogic

A suggestion.

Don't make these very long posts as nobody reads them.

Evolution isn't debatable and not the topic of this discussion. Evolution is a scientific fact. We just argue on the specifics and details.

a reply to: Consvoli

My comments are not intended for those described at or demonstrating the accuracy of 2 Timothy 4:3,4. Nor for those who prefer slogans and glib talk that 'tickles their ears'.

Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud (Awake!—1990)

...

“EVOLUTION is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”

...

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:

...

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind. ...

...

Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* [whereislogic: a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life", quoting Haldane and Oparin, and other evolutionists who have used the same term to promote and upgrade the so-called "hypothesis of abiogenesis", quoting Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog".] So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

Ok.

But evolution is a fact and it's not a debatable topic.

What Timothy says or does, I don't really care to be honest. But I do care about the details and the history of the human species and our ancestors.

originally posted by: Consvoli
a reply to: whereislogic

A suggestion.

...

Evolution isn't debatable and not the topic of this discussion. ...

In that case, I have a suggestion too.

You could post your thread in an echo chamber, instead of a debate forum with the motto: "Deny ignorance".

One thing is for sure, short comments using propagandistic slogans and uninformative versions of TLDR isn't going to help anyone "deny ignorance".

Discussing all the inconvenient facts in detail will. Including the most pertinent fact to the topic of this thread found early in my 1st comment (see bolded term):

Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.(3)

Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think. Good educators present all sides of an issue and encourage discussion. Propagandists relentlessly force you to hear their view and discourage discussion. Often their real motives are not apparent. They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

...

From the previous page:

...

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. ...

...

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

So that's a double whammy, pushing the fear and pride buttons.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Science said COVID was from nature.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

No, lying scientists said that. Big difference. They hid the real science, they hid the gain of function research.

But evolution is a fact and it's not a debatable topic.

a reply to: Consvoli

Some people believe in creationism. To believe in God, Jesus and to be a Christian...well, there seems to be somewhat of a supernatural belief too. Looking at the universe, from what little we really know, nothing is off the table for debate. All we have are theories and best guesses, many in the pysics community have question Einsteins theories. Science is always being questioned as new and additional information is presented. Fauci, for example, was a liar when he said the science was settled on covid. Can we all agree to that? Scientists sometimes lie and falsify studies etc...
Always question science, it is healthy to do so.

Proverbs 18:15 says, "The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge."

James 1:5 says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."

And I say, pursue a better understanding of Evolution.

From better sources.

You are on,

originally posted by: whereislogic
...a debate forum with the motto: "Deny ignorance".

after all.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Too bad the motto here isn't: "Deny propaganda". That would be way cooler.

Some more cool proverbs. Proverbs 4:7:

Wisdom is the most important* [Or “the prime.”] thing, so acquire wisdom,

And with all you acquire, acquire understanding.

Understanding must be based on knowledge, and works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts/certainties/truths/realities (all synonyms, as discussed before when I was discussing the term "science").

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Prov. 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Prov. 2:10, 11; 18:15.

“The understanding heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of the stupid feeds on* [Or “pursues.”] foolishness.” (Pr 15:14)

“When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge becomes pleasant to your soul, thinking ability will keep watch over you, and discernment will safeguard you”. (Pr 2:10,11)

Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is the “prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Prov. 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5.

“If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain.” (1 Tim 6:3-5) (note the slightly different rendering of some of those terms)

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't mean to insult you.

The Bible speaks of wolves in sheep's clothing, having lying mouths and speaking falsities. Those that would put stumbling blocks between one and the Lord. Right?

Well maybe consider that is the case with some of your go-to sources.

We may not understand everything about evolution, but the body of evidence is pretty vast and conclusive. Life evolves. Consider this, that through understanding evolution you can better understand God's creation and the natural world. It might even bring you closer to him. Sure, it might not fit as snuggly into the Genesis account, but it is important to remember that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, and was also written at a time where man's understanding was limited. The Bible deals with the spiritual, not the scientific.

The majority of sciences and scientists aren't trying to take God out of the picture.

Maybe wolves in sheep's clothing are trying to deceive you and limit your knowledge of your God's world, so that you don't see the picture.

In the opinion of this atheist at least.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: whereislogic

I don't mean to insult you.

No worries, didn't get that impression.

I expressed my opinion that "deny propaganda" sounds cooler but there are even cooler options:

Acquire understanding
Acquire wisdom

Unless by some miracle we could be absolutely sure that any of these fossils belonged to human ancestors who lived and died in the same place, why can't we understand that perhaps they were born in Europe and died in Africa or vice-versa after a nomadic voyage over a lifetime so we can never ever actually know the true history.

We are, and will always be "knuckle-scrapers" in some respects me thinks.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

But evolution is a fact and it's not a debatable topic.

a reply to: Consvoli

Some people believe in creationism. To believe in God, Jesus and to be a Christian...well, there seems to be somewhat of a supernatural belief too. Looking at the universe, from what little we really know, nothing is off the table for debate. All we have are theories and best guesses, many in the pysics community have question Einsteins theories. Science is always being questioned as new and additional information is presented. Fauci, for example, was a liar when he said the science was settled on covid. Can we all agree to that? Scientists sometimes lie and falsify studies etc...
Always question science, it is healthy to do so.

It's true sometimes scientists make mistakes and even falsify data. One of my threads it's about a scientist who faked data and is going to be fired.

Evolution on the other hand isn't a result of falsified data and we can all agree to this apart from creationists who live in their own world and dimension.

The study of human evolution is fascinating and there is a possibility hominins have evolved first in Europe and not in Africa.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Science said COVID was from nature.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

No, lying scientists said that. Big difference. They hid the real science, they hid the gain of function research.

That's one of the hypothesis made initially but still hasn't been proven and nobody knows for sure if the virus is a result of a gain of functions research or it came naturally. Not all scientists accepted the initial but convenient hypothesis.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: whereislogic

The Bible speaks of wolves in sheep's clothing, having lying mouths and speaking falsities. Those that would put stumbling blocks between one and the Lord. Right?

Correct, more or less.

Well maybe consider that is the case with some of your go-to sources.

I already did, there's hardly anyone more skeptical than me, certainly on ATS I have observed.

We may not understand everything about evolution, but the body of evidence is pretty vast and conclusive.

I have yet to find "conclusive" (and proper) evidence being presented by evolutionary philosophers and marketeers/propagandizers for their story of ape(like)-to-man evolution or their unverified idea/philosophy that all life has descended from a common ancestor(s), and without the propagandistic behaviour and standard modus operandi of sifting the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others, especially leaving out the inconvenient facts or distorting and twisting what it is these actually demonstrate regarding their ideas and "bedtime" stories (quoting Henry Gee from before).* This includes the genetic evidence concerning what mutations actually can accomplish or cannot, and what effect they cause in the long run. (*: see quotation before from the article about propaganda for a discussion concerning this behaviour and these tactics, the modus operandi of the propagandist.)

Or without the propagandistic behaviour and standard modus operandi of capitalizing on the ambiguity of language concerning the terms "evolution" and "evolve", or attempts to create that ambiguity by defining those terms in such general ways that leave out any mention of what is called "common descent" or that humans evolved from apelike ancestors; as I described things above when talking about what is also misleadingly referred to as "macroevolution" to connect it to the observations that are falsely referred to as "microevolution", which isn't evolution in this context, period (the context of what I prefer to call "evolutionary philosophies" when talking about "evolution", that's what I use the word for, and that includes the evolutionary storylines and ideas I just described concerning the terms "common descent" and "macroevolution", but also what is called "the chemical evolution theory of life" or "chemical evolution" for short). Nor evidence for what is called "macroevolution", "common descent" or that humans are apes, or evolved from apes, or from apelike ancestors ("evolved from apes" is the old way of telling the story, as if the modification of the story is helping anyone understand better that the evidence just isn't there. Re-define some more terms to save the storyline from embarassment will ye? I don't think they've done quite enough of a thorough job yet on "nothing", "species", "science", "information" and "design" yet.)

Concerning the video above, I am not a creationist, an adherent of creationism (like the man above). He still makes some decent points though, at least up till 8:33.

For those not unwilling to look at the fineprint (the inconvenient facts for evolutionary philosophies and storylines, as often admitted to by evolutionary philosophers and marketeers/propagandists themselves):

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Evolution—Myths and Facts

We may not understand everything about evolution, but the body of evidence is pretty vast and conclusive. Life evolves. Consider this, that through understanding evolution you can better understand God's creation and the natural world. Might even bring you closer to him. Sure, it might not fit as snuggly into the Genesis account, but it is important to remember that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, and was also written at a time where man's understanding was limited.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That was well put. To me, we definitely evolve but just not the way it is depicted in science textbooks or in the context of having evolved from a single cell. That is just my belief and I feel a strong case could be made but I do respect a healthy debate and other arguments being made as well. Whatever or whomever created this universe or even to say however it was first created is an awesome, overwhelming thought that is just not able to be fully comprehended. I will say that to think any of the genesis, origins of life and humankind is no longer debatable is absurd.