The Rules
We want to work from data. Data that is discussed must be accessible in the scientific literature. Personally, I would prefer the peer-reviewed literature, because, as those of us in science know all too well, the peer reviewers are usually one's competitors. Thus, they are typically extremely critical of what we write.
Any other information that is brought to bear must also be accessible to everyone. Where requested, direct quotes from the sources will be important.
The questions for discussion
1. What is the current best understanding of human origins?
2. What "confounds" are there in the interpretation of data?
3. Given that there is always genetic diversity within populations, how easily can we assign hominid fossils to different groups? Here, the term "form-species" is probably most useful, referring to similar fossils with similar forms, but in the absence of information on the capacity for interbreeding. In many cases, different form-species are different species (fossil trees vs fossil insects), but sometimes they are not (fossil leaves vs fossil roots of the same tree).
4. Does information based on fossil data mesh with information based on genetic data? The true history must be genetically feasible. The fossils must have been left by individuals who were produced by normal genetic methods. To be valid, any explanation of origins must incorporate both fossil and genetic data.
5. What are the parts of human history that are most at odds with (some) Christian views, and what suggestions can we offer for reaching a reconciliation?
I will begin by posting the following genetic data, which is pictorial representation of the differences and similarities in mitochondrial DNA sequence of a whole bunch of people. Relative difference/similarity is proportional to the lengths of the vertical lines. Horizontal lines merely separate the vertical lines so we can see them.
How do we interpret these data?
[If appropriate, I will edit this post to ensure that the OP of this thread lists the important questions.
The article spoke of recent data from various lines of investigation that provide yet more data on the mechanisms of evolution. There'd be little point in discussing fringe ideas that not only ignore the data, but even deny the existence of much of it.
