They say we came from the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. We supposed to evolve from them. What they say it’s not a fact it’s a theory that they claim. What they are trying to say is we came from Neanderthals 500,000 and 600,000 years ago because of something they discovered. My people was around longer than that. Everything we did scientist do not talk about. It is like they are hiding the fact away from the world, changing history of what was to make others believe what my people don’t believe. A lot of things happen before they claim came about.

You're right that you won't find the word Homo sapiens in the Torah, the Bible, papyrus scrolls, or clay tablets — because it's a very modern term with a very different purpose.
Ancient books and modern science are answering different questions.

1. Ancient texts were not trying to be biology textbooks
   The Torah, Bible, Sumerian clay tablets, Egyptian papyrus — they are theological, legal, historical and moral texts. They talk about who humans are in relation to God, to each other, and to creation. They don't use Latin scientific classification, they don't talk about bacteria, dinosaurs, or continents either, for the same reason.
   The story they tell is: humans were created by God.
2. Where "Homo sapiens" came from
   Homo sapiens is Latin for "wise man." It was invented as a label:
   • 1758: Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus created the modern system of naming living things. He put humans in the animal kingdom and named our species Homo sapiens to classify us like any other animal.
   • 1850s-1860s: Fossils of Neanderthals and other early humans were found. Charles Darwin then proposed that species change over time and share common ancestors.
   • 1900s to now: Thousands of fossils, stone tools, and later DNA evidence were found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The pattern showed that modern humans, Homo sapiens, appeared in Africa about 300,000 years ago, and that earlier species like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis came before us.
   So when science says "we came from Homo sapiens" — more accurately science says "we ARE Homo sapiens, and Homo sapiens came from earlier Homo species" — that claim comes from fossils, anatomy, and genetics, not from ancient scriptures.
3. Why the two sources don't match word for word
   The ancient writers didn't have microscopes, fossil dating, or the Latin naming system. The modern scientists didn't have their method until the last 300 years.
   That's why clay tablets and medieval manuscripts don't mention it. The concept didn't exist yet.
   Many people today read both: they read the Torah/Bible for why humans were created, and they look to science for how human bodies developed over time. Others see them as in conflict and choose one. Both readings are about interpreting two very different kinds of books written thousands of years apart.

There have been observable significant changes in the form of diets from the few centuries, and this can be attributed to technological advancement and agriculture, but similarly there's observable health impacts which directly or indirectly can be linked to our immune system..a residing question is, how does it impact evolution?

I've referenced this topic in previous posts, where different writers for AiG display their ignorance of the subject.

Between calling Protocetus a Pinniped or birds only have a pisiform, you can see how bad it is.

However, it also leads to hilarious contradicting opinions on transitional forms like Acanthostega or Homo habilis.

The concept of uniquely created kinds is challenged by morphology, which is why this happens, for there is no way to separate birds from dinosaurs, humans from apes, or whales from ungulates. transitions in the fossil record demonstrate gradual morphologic change, instead of distinct groups unrelated to anything else.

This is following up on the discussion by Will Duffy and Gutsick Gibbon on the following video https://www.youtube.com/live/apW16s2kJwg?is=pJidxzlKcIm1I5pe about whether snakes are tetrapods.

It's pretty much definitional sophistry in my opinion, and in no way invalidates evolution but it seems like Will was getting stuck on turtles and birds and snakes.

But as a thought experiment, imagine a weasel species started feeding its babies regurgitated flesh instead of milk. Imagine it lost its mammary gland function. Not a big evolutionary change. Not a "body plan" change. But now mammal != mammary!!! Does this make the barf-weasel not a mammal? Does it mean we need to rename the clade to something like hirsutia? Does it invalidate the theory of evolution?

Note: I'm trying to represent someone else's argument with a thought experiment. The argument to me seems prima facie nonsense, and I hope the thought experiment makes it clear why. It seems like Will was trying to say "phenetics makes more sense than cladistics, and classification should be based on single diagnostic traits"

Do you guys believe that there are objective functions for biological systems? For instance, an example would be the fact that a heart is supposed to pump blood is not simply a mental projection we impose upon it, but rather an actual fact about the heart itself. If so, what do you believe grounds that function?

If humans weren’t devolving then we wouldn’t be digging and searching our planet for clues and truths about the Ancient civilizations. Money and greed would be obsolete and nations wouldn’t be fighting over power because there would be free energy. The artifacts that have been found are proof that as humans today, we lost something in the past that cannot be imitated. If devolution isn’t a thing and we can only evolve then why is everything smaller and dulled down. Today’s humans can’t comprehend what the planet would have been like with a species bigger and more knowledge about the elements than we do in present day. The ancients used stone to tell the past because they knew that the materials they created from other materials would not make it into the future. What was left in stone for humans to find was only to give knowledge to our species to be able to progress.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how out of sync modern society feels with what our bodies and minds were built for. Hunter-gatherers lived in an environment and structure that shaped our species for hundreds of thousands of years (keeping in mind, of course, that evolution has no end goal or moral direction).

We obviously have modern medicine, tech, and safety today, but we’re also dealing with an epidemic of loneliness, chronic stress, sedentary habits, and a complete breakdown of close-knit communities.

I’d love to hear your take on this.

What do you see as the biggest flaws of modern society compared to that "original" human lifestyle?

Which specific aspects of today’s world do you think are doing the most damage to us mentally or physically?

Looking for honest, critical perspectives. Tell me what you genuinely think in your own words, no need for academic papers or textbook answers. Thanks!

Archaelogical evidence, historical evidence, cities and monuments to the tune of 99%+ only go back less than 6000 years.

No archaelogist can accurately talk about any civilization older than that because the evidence does not exist.

Buildings, parchments, monuments, engravings, evidence of life all only trace back to less than 6000 years- how is that possible?

Even taking into consideration things like the pagan statues in Easter Island and Stonehenge, the Great Wall of China, the pyramids in Egypt and mesoamerica etc there would naturally be some kind of evidence left behind life if humans did exist for millions and millions of years.

Yet it does not exist. Does anyone have a clear explanation for this?

And not only that- the evidence that does exist lines up near perfectly with historical records.

After all- if humans existed for millions of years, why is there not a single Stonehenge type monument from over 200,000 years ago?

EDIT:

There also arises other questions.

1. Neanderthals lost their ability to kill animals with their bare hands like other animals who forage for food.

Neanderthals did not have super sharp teeth, super strong limbs or other adaptations that would allow them to be able to kill other animals for food.

Thus they would have had to adapt and gather food, conduct agriculture or kill animals.

As soon as an animal loses their ability to naturally obtain food- then adaptational changes must occure very rapidly.

Thus, evidence of civilization must occur quickly.

Yet none of this evidence is over 6000 years old other than a few cave paintings, tools and fossils.

How is that possible?

And why is it that only humans use tools? No other animal uses tools.

And finally- evolution is about survival of the fittest- if so- then why would humans lose their ability to kill for food- it doesn't make any sense.

After all- if humans existed for millions of years, why is there not a single Stonehenge type monument from over 200,000 years ago?

Species, evolution, theory of evolution, heritability, fitness, organism, subspecies, selection, gene, population, traits.

These are all things that biologists seem to be either not able to define, cannot agree on a definition, or has not been tried to define. I will tell you what i mean.

Species has many definitions, and none are agreed upon. So if your theory of evolution demands a theory of species, how can it have concencus?

What is heritability? If one does not have an idea of species, then where are genes inherited from?

Sometimes evolution is defined as: "change in allele frequencies in a population across generations" How much change? what kind of populations? what is the definition of an allele which is not ambiguous or agreed on? Could all of life be the population? if so how do we show that the allele frequency actually does change and that we just havent checked eneough organisms yet?

What are traits? is hemochirality a trait? did that evolve? Is my trait that my farts make a sound evolved? how exactly and why did fart sound evolve?

what is fitness? "A simple way to think of fitness is as the number of offspring an individual leaves in the next generation. Suppose, for example, that in a species of annual plant, only 1 of every 1000 seeds survives to reproductive age, and that those that survive produce an average of 3000 seeds. The average fitness of that type of individual is 0.001 × 3000 = 3." - evolution, Futuyma. How does this make sense? its an arbitrary cutoff that says evolution stops acting at 2 generations. you might aswell say that the fitness of an organism depend on the next 3,4,500 generations of its offspring.

This central evolution textbook taught at universities all around, also claims all traits are evolved, which is itself contested within biology. So where do i go for the actual theory exactly? Where is the full, no gaps, no simplifications Evolution^(TM)? If i wanted to know what black holes really are, physicists would point me towards the state of the art, inspired by stephen hawking papers. I can find no such real papers in biology that people have concencus around. T

It seems like all the Biologists agree that evolution is real, and that the theory of evolution explains it. Yet it does not seem like there is widespread agreement about 1) what is the form of evolution proper? and 2) what is the theory of evolution actually in its details?

How can one have a science, where every fundamental concept is vague and not agreed upon? it makes the science itself vague, uncertain, unspecific. And i cant believe that.

In conclusion, either evolution is stripped of some of its linguistic power, and we fuel it only by statistics and quantitative data and form a new theory. Or we throw it all away.

Prove me wrong please.

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

I‘ve come to this conclusion after watching a debate between a orthobro streamer called JimBob and a professor who studies biology called Ed Dutton on modern day debate. Rhetorically, Jim absolutely mopped the floor with a PHD holder on a subject he is vastly more educated on than Jim will ever be and that’s because Jim was attacking the philosphical assumptions underpinning evolutionary biology instead of the actual physical facts. Some of those assumptions include methodological naturalism, uniformitarianism, nominalism etc. and professor Dutton was wholly unequipped to answer such questions.

I want to make it very clear that I am on Dutton’s side of the debate here but it did distraught me to see him unable to respond to which is honestly a whole bunch of overly complicated pseudo philosophical rhetoric and sophistry. It’s a very dishonest tactic that I rarely see called out as much with rigor in comparison to debates where all that’s being talked about are the facts because they’re much harder to respond to and much easier for guys like JimBob to take advantage of and peddle their bullshit to unsuspecting viewers who don’t know about this topic.

There is a growing amount of fundamentalist debaters like Jimbob who think they can dismiss basic science by just philosophizing it away in a complicated manner and a lot of their rhetoric is sophisticated enough that it requires a thorough understanding of philosophy and it’s history to meaningfully debunk.

My concern with this is that it looks as though it’s changing public perception of modern science as this fundamentally baseless erroneous institution no matter how much evidence it has to support it. I’ve looked up more debates of this subject featuring Jimbob and the comments are either almost unanimously in agreement with Jimbob no matter if it’s on his channel or someone else or those who disagree in the comments do not meaningfully challenge his points with anything other than insults. Right now it’s on just a few corners of the internet but this could evolve into seeing these similar type of these fallacious hyper philosphical arguments against stuff like evolution and climate change in the mainstream by smooth talkers especially with the trajectory the United States is going in now.

What are your thoughts?

Or unexplained things, inconsistencies?

Edit: please name them

What exactly, if there is one individual thing ,convinced you of evolution?

In my case, it was learning there is no real boundary between micro and macroevolution, and it has been observed in the form of speciation.