Why is there no unbiased information on the origin and migration of man?

Question

I am doing a research paper on the origin and migration of man. I have searched all over the Internet for information, but I cannot find anything objective. There are no evolutionists who take a fair look at creationists and no creationists who take a fair look at evolution. Can anyone help me?

In reality, I am mainly looking for just the facts, not all the fights and controversies. I just want to know where, when, how, why, etc. man evolved/began and migrated. All I find is based on another study. I want firsthand observation and study. I am desperate. Everything is so confusing. Please tell me if any of you have anything. I could use websites, books, and essays. Thanks!

Answer 1

First of all, filter out all the ".com" results. You don't want to go to a website where people are making money from distributing information. .net and .edu sites are best.

Second, try actually going to a library and asking a librarian for scientific journals. At least that way you have a credible source to cite.

Answer 2

The reason that a lot of evolutionary scientists (_not_ "evolutionists".  this isn't a cult or a religion) don't take a fair look at creationism is because it's outside of science.  Science relies solely on what you can see, hear, etc, and God is outside of all that.  You can accept science's discoveries about evolution, and still believe in a God-created universe; there are plenty of ways to consolidate your reason and your faith.  Science doesn't say anything about a supernatural being's influence on the universe because it _can't_.  You can't see God, or hear Him (barring certain mushrooms....), at least in the normal way, so science doesn't even go there.  You can be an evolutionary scientist and an atheist, a Catholic, a Muslim, or a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  It's cool, y'all.

Creationism's big problem is thinking it's a science.  It's not.  Again, unless the thing's observable, it's outside of science.  Electrons- observable through fancy machines or their effect on other things- part of science.  An omnipotent being who knows everything, is there even when you can't see/hear/touch Him, and is by His nature unknowable- not part of science.  That's fine.  Religion and Science do different things.  They're both important.  But when creationists start trying to "disprove" evolution, particularly by using bad or poorly understood science, then they look like idiots.  I'm sorry, but they do.  If you want to disprove evolution, you need to actually understand it first.

You can't firsthand look at human evolutions and beginnings unless you invent a time machine.  We're doing our best with what we've got, and we've done very well considering we've got what amounts to a handful of bones and what we can glean from playing with modern DNA.  Okay, it's not as bad as all of that, but then again, it is.  What I'm trying to say, very badly, is that there's a lot of room for interpretation in the hominid fossil record and in the artifacts we've found.  Check out the more respectable publications.  Go to a university library and play in their anthro section.  Read up on how evolution works- basic stuff.  And please don't confuse religion and science.  One is not better than the other, but it's bad when we try to use only one.

Answer 3

Probably the best place to start is wikipedia. I've scanned the page on human evolution and it looks rich in objective facts, balanced discussion and useful external links to take your research further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...

The evolution/creation controversy is limited to small pockets of the world that make a lot of noise and so the contoversy looks bigger than it actually is. The majority of the educated world understand that evolution pretty much happens the way the text books say it does. Even the Catholic Church recognises evolutions validity.

Unless the person setting this paper for you has asked about the creationist side of the debate, It would be in your interests to ignore it for the purposes of this research. If you are interested, it is covered quite well here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-ev...

Otherwise pay it no mind.

Answer 4

You ask "Why is there. . ."

Because all the evidence is GONE.  Only conjecture is left.  The earliest thinkers on these subjects could not go to the places where they conjectured - Tigris Euphrates river system - and even if they had gone, the stuff of primary sources was GONE.  

So, buddy.  you will add your paper to all the others.  

What is left is 'faith', or 'choice'  It takes as much faith to believe the one side as it does the other.  There is NO empirical evidence at all and you are faced with making a choice yourself.

If it were clear cut, we would all be convinced of one side or the other.

Answer 5

The supporters of the Creation hypothesis are a loud but small minority. The Catholic Church, in its wisdom, has accepted Evolution as probable fact, just as they accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun a few years ago (see below). The evidence for evolution is all there, and is easier to support scientifically, without "massaging" evidence. You would save yourself a lot of time if you just ignored creation, or at least separated the evolution of the human body and development of the spirit/soul.

.

Answer 6

Get some of the Catholic Information on both You will be surprise at how non-bias they are. try it you will loose nothing.

Answer 7

You have to sift through the information yourself to separate fact from fiction. I do have a website

Ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever.

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation