Proof that evolution is the only answer

I don't think humans came out of Africa. I mean, are you saying white people evolved from black people? That's racist! Asian people evolved those chinky eyes to see through jungles and harvest small little rice better and make electronic components with precision? Racist! Native American people evolved all spiritual and stuff to communicate with animals so they could be shamans and find '___'? Racist!

Here's one out of hundreds of papers that includes EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE:

Evidence for recent, population-specific evolution of the human mutation rate
Kelley Harris1
Author Affiliations

Edited by Mark Stoneking, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, and accepted by the Editorial Board February 6, 2015 (received for review September 26, 2014)

AbstractFull TextAuthors & InfoFiguresSIMetricsRelated ContentPDFPDF + SI
Significance

Most, but not all, human genetic variation is shared between populations, and whole-genome sequencing is now making it possible to catalogue population-private mutations that occur in only one ethnic group and are especially informative about recent human history. By contrasting frequencies of mutations private to Europe, Asia, and Africa, I have revealed a previously undetected difference between Europeans and other ethnic groups: Europeans experience higher rates of a specific mutation type that has known associations with UV light exposure. Although it is not clear whether the excess mutations are harmful or directly related to the UV sensitivity of light skin, this result demonstrates that the human mutation rate has evolved on a much faster timescale than previously believed.


Next Section
Abstract
As humans dispersed out of Africa they adapted to new environmental challenges, including changes in exposure to mutagenic solar radiation. Humans in temperate latitudes have acquired light skin that is relatively transparent to UV light, and some evidence suggests that their DNA damage response pathways have also experienced local adaptation. This raises the possibility that different populations have experienced different selective pressures affecting genome integrity. Here, I present evidence that the rate of a particular mutation type has recently increased in the European population, rising in frequency by 50% during the 40,000–80,000 y since Europeans began diverging from Asians. A comparison of SNPs private to Africa, Asia, and Europe in the 1000 Genomes data reveals that private European variation is enriched for the transition 5′-TCC-3′ → 5′-TTC-3′. Although it is not clear whether UV played a causal role in changing the European mutational spectrum, 5′-TCC-3′ → 5′-TTC-3′ is known to be the most common somatic mutation present in melanoma skin cancers, as well as the mutation most frequently induced in vitro by UV. Regardless of its causality, this change indicates that DNA replication fidelity has not remained stable even since the origin of modern humans and might have changed numerous times during our recent evolutionary history.

FULL TEXT INCLUDING METHODS AND MATERIALS: www.pnas.org...

None of these articles is labeled, "empirical evidence" soo....

a reply to: AshFan

You know what
Mormons do believe they will evolve into space gods, true story

It's funny how people think they are so clever but don't even know what they are saying, are so ignorant of the truth

Mormons aside, you can thump your evolutionary bible, please don't call it a science without real scientific evidence
It makes you look like a Mormon, it does suit you though...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

So you are STILL NOT going to offer any empirical evidence
I know you won't because you can't, science doesn't have any

You don't know science, scienc doesn't have any, go search empirical evidence for evolution, it doesn't exist
You lie, it's all you can do, lie
Phantom, there is no empirical evidence, there is none, that's a fact
If there was you would show it to me here and now
You, science have nothing, just faith and belief

Pull the trigger

Now please learn simple
I am not saying creation is science, there is no onus on me to prove it
I accept its a faith

Here's another one:

Adaptive evolution: evaluating empirical support for theoretical predictions

Carrie F. Olson-Manning, Maggie R. Wagner & Thomas Mitchell-Olds

Abstract
Adaptive evolution is shaped by the interaction of population genetics, natural selection and underlying network and biochemical constraints. Variation created by mutation, the raw material for evolutionary change, is translated into phenotypes by flux through metabolic pathways and by the topography and dynamics of molecular networks. Finally, the retention of genetic variation and the efficacy of selection depend on population genetics and demographic history. Emergent high-throughput experimental methods and sequencing technologies allow us to gather more evidence and to move beyond the theory in different systems and populations. Here we review the extent to which recent evidence supports long-established theoretical principles of adaptation.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: AshFan

Then you didn't read it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Will you tell us your version then? with empirical evidence?. Thought not.
In fact what are your views? god made us how we are all formed and such?.

I've heard some people claim that you can tell a persons religion by the way they look, however they offered no empirical evidence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: AshFan

Then you didn't read it.

I think that might be a root cause of a problem... people wont read what conflicts with fantasy.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: Raggedyman

Will you tell us your version then? with empirical evidence?. Thought not.
In fact what are your views? god made us how we are all formed and such?.

Who are you talking about?

a reply to: AshFan

Raggy...he bleats against evolution but offers no alternative.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: AshFan

Raggy...he bleats against evolution but offers no alternative.

Who now?

a reply to: Raggedyman

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: AshFan

Thanks! And thanks for the link - This stuff fascinates me as I used to be creationism only and 6000 year old earth type of person.

Wow! You got better!

Would you share how you came to see reason?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

At least he provides opposing evidence and views.
Raggedyman doesn'tprovide anything.

The onus is not on me to provide anything, I am not saying I have evidence
The onus is on you
The onus is on science to provide empirical evidence

I still havnt seen any

All I hear is we have shown you, yet, I havnt seen any empirical evidence

So why not just show it to me, empirical evidence that is
Not assumption, real scientific evidence, not faith or belief, real science

I can go on and on and all you can do is ad hominem, let's keep playing

I just have to post asking for empirical evidence, that's all I will do

Talk is cheap, empirical evidence wins the flag, go get them my little students of science, get amongst it
Win the day, shut me up.
Get the empirical evidence

So am I to assume a face palm picture is empirical evidence, what I asked for
Or is it you trying to deflect answering my question for empirical evidence

Is that a white feather falling to the ground Phants
, a sign that you are running from true science, all you have to offer for empirical evidence

Your best shot is to hide behind the palm of your hand, to run and hide, the white feather

Here's another one:

Sympatric Speciation: Models and Empirical Evidence

Abstract
Sympatric speciation, the evolution of reproductive isolation with- out geographic barriers, remains highly contentious. As a result of new empirical examples and theory, it is now generally accepted that sympatric speciation has occurred in at least a few instances, and is theoretically plausible. Instead, debate has shifted to whether sym- patric speciation is common, and whether models' assumptions are generally met in nature. The relative frequency of sympatric spe- ciation will be difficult to resolve, because biogeographic changes have obscured geographical patterns underlying many past specia- tion events. In contrast, progress is being made on evaluating the empirical validity of key theoretical conditions for sympatric spe- ciation. Disruptive selection and direct selection on mating traits, which should facilitate sympatric speciation, are biologically well supported. Conversely, costs to assortative mating are also widely documented, but inhibit speciation. Evaluating the joint incidence of these key factors may illuminate why sympatric speciation appears to be relatively uncommon.

INTRODUCTION
Sympatric speciation is among the most persistently contested topics in evolution, dating
back to correspondence between Darwin andWagner. Early geneticists claimed
that new species arise instantaneously via mutation from within their ancestral range
(de Vries 1901–1903), whereas naturalists countered that related species in nature
were always separated by geographic barriers ( Jordan 1905). Debate waned after
Mayr (1963) outlined a compelling case against sympatric divergence, arguing that
it was theoretically unlikely. The key problem is that mating and recombination
rapidly break down linkage disequilibrium, preventing formation of genetically distinct
subgroups. Mayr therefore argued that overlapping ranges are better explained
by secondary contact between allopatrically derived species. However, Mayr presciently
predicted that “the issue will be raised again at regular intervals. Sympatric
speciation is like the Lernaean Hydra which grew two new heads whenever one of its
old heads was cut off” (p. 451).
Since 1990, the number of papers on sympatric speciation has increased exponentially.
This revival of the Hydra can be attributed in part to molecular phylogenetics,
which provides a new source of data to evaluate Mayr’s alternative hypothesis of secondary
contact. There are now a few widely accepted examples of sympatric speciation,
which in turn inspired a proliferation of theoretical models. Many skeptics now
concede that sympatric speciation is theoretically possible and has probably occurred
in nature (Coyne & Orr 2004). Debate has shifted to the still more difficult questions
of how frequent sympatric speciation may be, and what mechanisms drive speciation.
In this review, we describe recent empirical results and the theory underlying this
shift, and discuss prospects for future progress.

Article in Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics ·
www.researchgate.net...

a reply to: Phantom423

Stop posting evidence and science and pesky facts and stuff like that. You're not going to convince or convert anybody. I'm perfectly in agreement with you, but these "Young Earth" people are very delusional. The only thing you facts will do to them, is they will admit they are only "facts". If the evidence is too overwhelming, they'll just assume the devil put it there to trick them and tempt them. It is really a sad state of affairs and I applaud your effort, but you're casting pearls before swine.

a reply to: JackKcaj

I still find it interesting

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

At least he provides opposing evidence and views.
Raggedyman doesn'tprovide anything.

The onus is not on me to provide anything, I am not saying I have evidence
The onus is on you
The onus is on science to provide empirical evidence

I still havnt seen any

All I hear is we have shown you, yet, I havnt seen any empirical evidence

So why not just show it to me, empirical evidence that is
Not assumption, real scientific evidence, not faith or belief, real science

I can go on and on and all you can do is ad hominem, let's keep playing

I just have to post asking for empirical evidence, that's all I will do

Talk is cheap, empirical evidence wins the flag, go get them my little students of science, get amongst it
Win the day, shut me up.
Get the empirical evidence

So am I to assume a face palm picture is empirical evidence, what I asked for
Or is it you trying to deflect answering my question for empirical evidence

Is that a white feather falling to the ground Phants
, a sign that you are running from true science, all you have to offer for empirical evidence

Your best shot is to hide behind the palm of your hand, to run and hide, the white feather

originally posted by: JackKcaj
a reply to: Phantom423

Stop posting evidence and science and pesky facts and stuff like that. You're not going to convince or convert anybody. I'm perfectly in agreement with you, but these "Young Earth" people are very delusional. The only thing you facts will do to them, is they will admit they are only "facts". If the evidence is too overwhelming, they'll just assume the devil put it there to trick them and tempt them. It is really a sad state of affairs and I applaud your effort, but you're casting pearls before swine.

Yeah, I try to stop, but it's too much fun nailing these guys to their own coffins.

Ignorance may be bliss, but I intend to make their lives miserable!

a reply to: Raggedyman

See and that is again on YOU. You refuse to reply when the evidence is shown. We've done it. Thus we do not need to reply with it again. If you don't want to engage, and just throw dogma, then you are the person at fault, not anyone else.