With So Many Concessions in Debate, We Sometimes Forget They Are Concessions!

With So Many Concessions in Debate, We Sometimes Forget They Are Concessions! What is the fundamental difference between classifying Neanderthals as an independent species within the genus Homo, and classifying them as a subspecies within the genus Homo sapiens? There's no fundamental difference! Just a procedural difference related to a sub-issue within taxonomy, and this is the opinion of Saventi Babu himself (the Nobel laureate) and his team, his opinion that this is a sterile debate! In both cases, there are no serious implications for the debate about the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to explain whether or not humans originated. The theory of evolution assumes its ability to explain the origin and diversity of all living species through natural mechanisms, and therefore the type of evidence required to prove their validity is much greater than the mere proof of the occurrence of speciation, that every day we see the reproductive isolation and the division of the species into two types, into two separate reproductive groups, does this prove the validity of the theory of evolution?! Answer, no! and a thousand no! and a million no! To prove it, evolutionists need to: Overcome the problem that the vast majority of observed mutations lead to modification through demolition rather than construction. - Overcoming the problem of the time required for the emergence of mutations that exceed the supposed age of the presence of organisms on Earth. Overcome the problem of interpreting the intelligence required to build biological complexity through natural mechanisms. - Overcoming the problem of building networks of genetic regulation through natural mechanisms. - Overcoming the problem of building complex biochemical machines through natural mechanisms. - Overcome the problem of not being able to interpret bioexplosives through the slow sequential progression you assume. - Overcome the problem of the stark contrast between the fossil record, in which only a handful can be referred to as intermediate rings, and its assumption of billions and billions of intermediate rings. - Overcoming the problem of its inability to build an evolutionary picture of life or a tree of life, none of its mechanisms can maintain the distinctive features of the species, and therefore the evolutionary tree is contrary to the hierarchical classification that was established before its appearance. - Overcoming the problem of the inability of the hypotheses of chemical evolution to explain the origin of life so far. Overcome the problems of interpreting the emergence of complex biological behaviors (cooperation, altruism, etc.). Overcome the problem of the emergence of the human mind. Let go of all that, and try to show that the only problem with being Neanderthal species or subspecies is a major disaster! Trying to show that the only problem with evolutionary theory is its ability to explain the emergence of new species (especially when using the BCS concept of species) is a major disaster! When the Nobel Committee chose to give the prize in medicine for research that reveals important stages in our genetic history, its main goal was to say in its media statement that the theory of evolution once again wins the Nobel Prize! Hence, it appears to the public that the theory of evolution is scientifically proven and does not accept criticism, and therefore the strongest response to this is to reveal that the continuous ideological support for the theory of evolution since the beginning of this millennium, is the strongest evidence that the words of scientific criticism cracked the ears of major scientific societies, and forced them to enter the proof of a theory that we are told is fixed and does not accept criticism! If she is uncritical, why do you always bother asserting her health so shamefully? Following ----- Photo from an article in Science magazine: Ann Gibbons, "A New View Of the Birth of Homo sapiens", SCIENCE, 28 Jan 2011, Vol 331, Issue 6016 pp. 392-394 DOI: 10.1126/science.331.6016.392 — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02337eR1uHG5SPGP3FCGQopQKnxxSz9HNSY2WNVd2U8QGk4GFq8vwbfK3N93JaeWYUl