/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

ok

What is the point of this thread? Couldn't you have posted it in one of the dozen other Evolution vs Creation threads here?

>>577684

>he posts bones as an argument

>>577356

>Raymond Dart (with the later help of Robert Broom) had solidified the origins of man within the African continent.

Might want to update your research there, fam.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

>>577746

>SciRP

From what I've read thus far in the paper and on this website, it seems rather dubious in quality. More importantly, I was talking about earlier ancestors such as the australopithecines.

>>577758

Ohoho, just found this.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/theories

>The Into Africa hypothesis has been proposed by Anatole Klyosov, a chemist from Russia who is now living in America. He writes prolifically on the subject of what he calls “DNA genealogy”. His research is almost all self-published. Klyosov is the editor of Advances in Anthropology published by the questionable open access publisher Scientific Research Publishing. None of the members of the journal's editorial board has a background in population genetics. Klyosov has published two articles in this journal (2012 and 2014) supposedly refuting the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposing his alternative Into Africa theory. But these papers focus on a questionable analysis of Y-DNA and mtDNA which are of limited value for inferences about human origins. (Y-DNA and mtDNA tests can, however, be used legitimately for genealogical purposes.)

Looks like I was sufficiently updated befor reading that psuedoscientific dreck.

>>577356

Didn't some russian scientists disprove that Whites decended from blacks?

>>577808

See >>577773

How can we disprove the idea of evolution and Old Earth when the bones prove otherwise?

>>577773

>(((UCL)))

Top goy.

>>577897

>shamelessly self-publishes his work

>pseuds eat it up

>people call him out on his shit

>they're the deluded ones

Sure bud.

>>577954

I'm not defending him, but the replacement of the impartial review system with the peer review system has been the death of science. If anyone cannot see the problems wrong with peer review then they might just be either crazy or on a peer review board themselves.

>>577957

While there are problems, how many more would an "impartial review system" wreak in its stead? Not saying the system is perfect, but it seems to have a bit more efficiency than self-publishing your work for the masses to review.

>>577773

I think it's pretty self-evident that intelligence was brought into Africa.

>supporting the satanic macro-evolution theory