Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

Races are easy!They are created by a mixture of geographic factors and descent groups.There are lots of books giving the details.And races have nothing to do with old tribal myths.

Can you point to one of the fossil finds and say that is the first?How do you deal with the gradual transitions between one species and the next? It is like the colors of the rainbow--it is very difficult to say where one color ends and the next begins.Unless you're going on pure belief, then no evidence is needed.

Do you know what a clinal distribution is?Have you any reason to believe that you can pick a single point on a cline and declare that "This is the first!"?

This is an example of a clinal distribution: Given this type of a distribution, how is one to select the single point that represents the end of one type and the beginning of another?Or, in dealing with the human situation, how is one to select when the first human was born? Is no speciation characterized by a clinal distribution among many traits within a population?

You are confusing two vastly different things: science and scientists.Science doesn't accept something just because some scientist claims it. Remember back to cold fusion? The claim was made and several other laboratories immediately tried to replicate the results--they didn't just take someone's word for it.There is quite a system of checks and balances in modern science. While some scientists can be fooled, or fool themselves, that doesn't last long as other scientists are always testing and attempting to falsify existing theories. There is no quicker way for a graduate student to become famous than overturning some long-held and cherished theory. So do scientists. That's the way things work in science.Note that this is the opposite of the way religion works.In science if there is a disagreement scientists look to the evidence to see which side is more correct. Evidence trumps what "they want to be true, agendas, need for popularity and acceptance and respectability and funding."In religion if there is a disagreement there is more likely to be a schism, leading to two different denominations or sects. Belief trumps evidence.

You want proof of a negative?And mathematical precision on something that is not mathematical?Why not wish for $6 million dollars and a Lear jet?

I think you could benefit from an anthropology course in comparative religions.

Perhaps you wouldn't learn anything after all. No, it is not. But speciation can be observed in ring species in that each group along the ring can interbreed with its neighbors, but the far ends of the "horseshoe," where they back come into contact, do not freely interbreed in nature. That is not to say they can't be forced to interbreed in unnatural conditions, but they do not freely interbreed in nature.I think this is a good illustration of speciation. The same differences that we see in ring species because of geographic distance and isolation are what also occur with temporal separation. Evolution occurs within populations, and generally with a clinal distribution. That is, a population changes gradually over time. Like a ring species, it is possible to see the changes when one looks at distantly separate individuals, but not so easy to see changes of adjacent individuals. See my previous response, above.You want to say that there was a single first man and woman because the bible says so, and because of that you are willing to ignore what the real world evidence shows.How much evidence are you willing to deny to do so?

I would look at results. In the past few hundred years the explanations provided by religion have not produced accurate results, while the explanations provided by science have led to ever more accurate results. Just look at a list of the things once explained as the result of deities that are now better explained on the basis of natural causes. And just look at some of the claims made by religions that have been shown to be incorrect. Two of the biggest goofs are a young earth and the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.And I would not be looking for "truth," whatever that is:

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

And the results would be judged against real-world evidence.You also note: I would suggest that our current explanation is more accurate than the previous one. If (WHEN!) there are further changes in the future, following the scientific method will give us still more accurate explanations.And how do we judge the accuracy of a scientific explanation (also known as a theory)? We test it against real-world evidence.To summarize, over the past few centuries the explanations provided by science have withstood the test against real-world evidence far better than the explanations provided by the 40,000+ worldwide religions, denominations, sects, etc.

Regarding my quotation about truth in science. That's from a CalTech physics website. I added the phrase "or science" that appears in brackets. And yes, I think that statement is accurate (note: accure, not "truth," "Truth," or even "TRVTH".That quotation says, in part, "Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding." I think the claims made by religious groups that they each have the "truth" (all 40,000+ religions, denominations, sects, etc.) are sufficient to cast doubt on all of them. Makes no difference. A similar list of great discoveries by atheists could be found.I note that your list includes Galileo. Regarding his heliocentric views, you should mention that he was ordered by the Inquisition as follows: Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life! At that he fared far better than Giordano Bruno, who just a few years earlier was burned at the stake for the same views. I don't know how Copernicus got away with his heliocentric discoveries in the first place--must have had a better lawyer or something.In summary of your list, I suggest that a lot of the great discoveries by theists were made when they ignored the church more so than when they followed it. If you were more familiar with the scientific method you would know that science does not deal in "proof" any more than it deals in "truth."Science seeks the best explanations it can find for the real world, and it bases those explanations on real world evidence. If something is claimed that is outside of the real world, science does not address it because there is no evidence against which those claims can be judged. If you claim there are pink unicorns around, what instrument or other method can scientists use to evaluate that claim?And there is where you can contribute: provide evidence that others can judge for the claims you make.

"Savage" is a cultural condition, not a race.