Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species
 Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–6.Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R.doi:10.1038/nature02842.PMID 15457259. calculate an age of 2,000 to 4,000 years based on a non-genetic, mathematical model that assumes random mating although it has taken into account important aspects of human population substructure such as assortative mating and historical geographical constraints on interbreeding. This range is consistent with the age of 3,100 years calculated for the MRCA of the JC virus, an ubiquitous human polyomavirus usually transmitted from parents to children by L. A. Shackelton et al., "JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations" Journal of Virology, Vol. 80, No. 20 (Oct. 2006),
Not in the US. Great armies of stupid people still roam our streets, and large swaths of Americans are immune to science based facts. Please refer to the amount of Trumpian voters and the occasional morons who think the world if flat.
Yes Redvip sadly creationism is alive and well in the old colony. In the UK most Christians who describe themselves as "bible-believing" or evangelical would not accept that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.
More traditional C of E and catholics generally have no problem with it although some of them tend to muddy the waters when it comes to the origin of humans.
The real point of my OP is that common ancestry of all living things is an established fact that stands alone regardless of questions about the origin of life or cosmic origins.
Evolution does not belong to atheism.
Yup agree, and evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive. If someone's position is that evolution is true, but that an old man with a white beard and cloud shoes made it all happen, I can somewhat respect that.
correct me if wrong - but I get the impression that you only go back 4,000 years for the 'qualia' that you think entered humans at that point?
as far as I know complex human settlements surely go back further than that?
Maybe I am out of order with my this comment:-
I am sure I am one of many who have benefited from Coftys O.Ps. I can also understand a poster should post with the strength of their convictions, so I have no problem with that. But I also think a poster should know when their posts become dis-respectful and meaningless to an O.P.
Now to answer why I believe in evolution. Sadly I am not well educated, I have read no books on the subject, but I think i must face reality, In my opinion if we were made in the image of God, then this image must be seen in all the torture, all the holocausts, all the evil within mankind. This is the " Self portrait of God" And this is my reason for believing in Evolution.
Now I will respect a poster who can refute my reason for believing in evolution, in their own words.
It is interesting that the JW Org admits that evolution by Natural Selection takes place, though they do not admit it works as it actually does, denying the emergence of new Species.
Their other problem is that the Evolution they do acknowledge they are forced to fit into their own time-line.
So they say it all occurred after Adam and Eve, which is about 16,000 times faster than actually happened.
the JW Org admits that evolution by Natural Selection takes place, though they do not admit it works as it actually does.
But they really don't. In other words, you are right in saying that implicitly they do, because that is how they explain the diversity today vis a vis the Noah's Ark fairy tale, but thy don't accept that label.
They will never say " and evolution is how the animals in the ark become all of species and breeds we see today". They will dance around the issue and call it adaptations just like the rest of creationist drones.
In fact i'm pretty sure you can get them to agree to the entire process of evolution if you are careful enough not to use the word.
Yes. --Similar to their views on predation. On paper, JW's deny that it was ever God's plan, but in actual practice some of their own creation arguments are based on it.
It comes down to not thinking those arguments through and/or possibly not even understanding them at all. (Since many of them seem to come from other Christian sources.)