Look up articles in Wikipedia "Y-Chromosomal Adam", "Mitochondrial Eve".
Why? If you have an argument, make it and support it with links if you like. But orphan links - links with no argument substituting for an argument - are of no interest. Historically, the person leaving the link hasn't understood it, so what's the value in addressing its contents? Or, we'll get, "That's not the part of the article I was interested in."
It is violation of Presumption of Innocence, and making the Presumption of Guilt.
Nobody has to presume innocence except members of a jury, not even the attorneys.
"scientific scepticism'' is nothing more than a negative emotion
Skepticism is not an emotion. It's one of the most profound and successful ideas mankind has ever had. It converted alchemy to chemistry and astrology to astronomy:
"
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha
How in the Darwin's Evolution to distinguish the very first person from a monkey
There is no very first person. The sorities paradox tells us that there is no first moment for a heap of sand piled up one grain at a time, no first moment when you have a beard rather than just stubble, no first moment when a collection of H2O molecules becomes wet, and no first instant of daylight in the morning. Here's a nice illustration:
Quote - "And proof is that which convinces" That's a seriously weird statement
I thought that it was self-evidently true. When somebody tells me that he can prove something to me, he is saying that he can convince me of that idea. If he succeeds, I'll say he proved it to me, meaning I'm convinced. If he fails, then he has not proven anything because he has not convinced.
When somebody tells me that he has proved something, if nobody's mind was changed, then I tell him he didn't prove anything. He tried, but failed.
Uncontested usefulness does not equal fact.
Uncontested usefulness is how we determine that an idea is a fact. Correct ideas work. That's what lets us know they're correct. If I tell you that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier, the deciding factor of whether that is correct/truth/fact or not will be whether this idea can be used to get me to the pier from my front door. If walking 5 blocks south and three blocks west works as hoped to get me to the pier, then the idea is correct, can be called a fact, and has uncontested usefulness. If I end up anywhere else, it was wrong, not a fact, and not useful.
Btw, gravity can hardly claim to be a fact either. What with those you whippersnappers and their hot air balloons and hang-gliders and their parachutes and solar-powered planes it seems pretty easy to defy gravity, actually.
Gravity is a fact. The fact that stronger forces can overcome a gravitational force does not make the downward pull of gravity any less.
Darwinism has been put into use in society, with disastrous results. Think of Adolf Hitler
Hitler has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which is not value-laden or purpose-driven, biology, and which is powered by natural selection. Hitler has more in common with biblical principles such as chosen people and genocides. Hitler was trying to do to his enemies what the god of the Hebrews did to his enemies such as the people living around Noah or the Egyptians' first born sons. That is value-laden, purpose-driven, artificial selection and not biology..
Sorry Darwin, nobody would agree that blind moles are the fittest creatures of their group.
They are fit to survive where they do or they wouldn't be there, and they are more fit for that environment than the other creatures that haven't replaced them.
Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?
