When scientists give a description of something they mean it literally, so you can be sure that the description they give as "a few millimeters" or 1 inch is what they mean.
I didn't say an inch wasn't an inch. I said the qualities of space taken up by an inch were different at the different times. And according to the theory, they were. The space of an inch at close to the big bang must have contained billions to the billionth power (more or less) of mass. My overarching statement is that it doesn't matter how small the universe was, Big Bang Theory does not hold that the universe did not come from "nothing" and that it was not "created." Your statement seems to be that since it was so small it might as well have been created.
When I put "extreme scenarios" in quotation marks it was because that is the scientist's stated position and the exact wording that the Smithsonian Institution used to describe them on their website. The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website. In an earlier post in this thread I gave the Smithsonian's website address and directions on how to find the pertinent information on human evolution as they present it. I'm not going to type up all of the Smithsonian's evidence for you to read here when you can simply go to their website and study the information as they present it.
A simple "I got that statement from the Smithsonian website that Mr. G posted a link to" would have sufficed.
I believe you are misinterpreting the use of "extreme" here. It seems to me the word is describing the difference between the (two most popular) theories, not describing the theories as radically unfounded from some absolute or mainstream common sense. Both theories seem plausible, it's just that they diverge from one another at some point, and I would trust that the Smithsonian would describe the theories held out by the majority of experts in the field.
In particular:
The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website.
Yet you wrote:
There is no record of our type of human before the evidence dated 30,000 to 32,000 year ago. That is the scientific community's position.
Yet the website states, as Mr. G posted:
Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.
From your previous post, you seem to be agreeing that the Smithsonian's website is a credible representation of the "scientific community's position." This is the third time this has been pointed out to you now. Why are you not seeing it, or why are you ignoring it? Who's rushing? Look at what you've written:
If you don't go and read or look at any of the references I give, then how can you expect to discuss the subject in a progressive and intelligent manner?
Yet you gave no references:
For any connection to neanderthals to be entertained, two "extreme scenarios" had to be postulated. That means that the scientific community does not have even a reaonable belief that the present type of humans were phylogenically related to neanderthals or they would have given a "reasonable scenario".
Nowhere in that post of 9/5 did you mention a reference or the Smithsonian. I did not previously go and look at the Smithsonian website earlier that Mr.G posted a link to because I did not need convincing that the anatomically modern human species were older than 30.000 years. So I did not know you were quoting the website. Which is why I asked where and what these "extreme" theories were.
When you say that people have different phylogeny but come from a single source, you are merely making speculation that falls within the framework of the "extreme scenarios" put forth by the scientific community to try and somehow propose links where no links exist, simply so that they don't have to abandon the evolution theory and replace it with something else.
Proposing links is what science is all about. That's the "hypothesis" part of the process. Because a link hasn't been proven yet does not mean that it doesn't exist. And yes, it is so that they don't have to abandon the evolutionary theory! There's no reason to replace it with something else because there's no reason to! That's not a conspiracy or stupidity!
Natural selection of a species is a physical process. Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory. In order to discuss science, you must be able to distinguish between a process and a theory.
More scientifically put, natural selection is an observable phenomenon. A theory describes it. Because something is "only a theory" does not mean it is not true, or not as good as a "law." Science is not interested in making all theories into "laws." Theories support the process of Science, and constantly confirming or disproving the theories is the heart of the process. I don't know where "you must be able to distinguish... if you want to discuss Science" came from, where I proved that I don't understand the difference, but it seemed you were looking for another fillip to barb your post with.
If your reply is, "well, you were pretty snotty yourself," then I can only retort that you started the insults here, John. You constantly ignored refutations to your statements and claimed that it was other people ignoring you. Mr. G has made a couple off-color remarks, yes, as well as some of the other guys, but your language is absolutely saturated with condescension and ad hominem challenges to everyone's intelligence. I know you will probably have to challenge this in your next post, which I will no longer address in any replies, but if you insist on inserting sentences like "then how are you ever going to understand anything?" in every paragraph, then your productive days here are limited. I see you've been here only a few weeks, and yet you've already managed to incense some of the more level-headed senior posters here. There have been plenty of posters that have came through, claiming they've dismantled the theory of relativity or have come up with time travel, and have the evidence to stand the whole world of science on its ear. Eventually they get ignored, not because other posters don't like their opinions, but because these persons turn to insults and consistently fail to understand or acknowledge logical argument.
Here's my pledge: if you post statements that argue positions on science, then I will address those positions in a neutral language, without assuming or trying to establish your ability or intelligence or waist size. Please don't say that that's what you've been trying to do. I (or rather you) showed earlier that you resorted to insults rather than argument.
Now: I will go back and reread all the posts, and try to condense your position, and repost it, so that we can return to the topic at hand. Perhaps we will find it necessary to start a new thread. Perhaps in the interest of this you may want to do this yourself, to reiterate your position, as it was spread out over many posts.
Good day.
Le Coq