ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,13:22) | | OK. Hold it right there, then. Please explain to me how the following scenario is plausible. I am trying to accurately portray your view. Here we go. About 5 mya was when the Gorilla/Human LCA diverged, right? After this point, one line from this LCA began to diverge toward gorillas and another line continued toward H. sapiens. About 500 kya (?) we were at the Cromagnon stage which we could say is roughly the type of species Crow is talking about when he says "stone age ancestors." Are we good so far? Or maybe Crow is talking about H. sapiens at around 100 kya. Is that better? I don't think it matters, but let's assume the latter. So now the time is 100 kya. Our stone age ancestors are doing what they do--hunting, gathering, grunting, fighting, etc.--yet they are genetically superior to us, right? (we already agreed on that). And yet 100,000 years later, here we are--smarter, more cultured, more evolved, whatever--and mutations accomplished this? Mutations!!?? These mistakes that Crow says "the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious." ?? Hello? McFly? |
Dave, once again you're tripping over your own penis, because you have almost no understanding of, or knowledge about, even the most basic scientific facts.
Humans have hardly evolved at all over the past 100,000 years.
(Cro-Magnons do not appear 500,000 years ago. Not remotely. Neanderthals don't go back that far. Cro-Magnons are essentially modern H. sapiens.)
Yes, there have been minor evolutionary changes in that time. But there's no evidence that humans living today (humans living 100,000 years ago are for most purposes "modern") are any more intelligent, or more "evolved" than humans from 100,000 years ago. Culturally, yes. Genetically, not at all. Australopithenes were, for the most part, indistinguishable from modern humans from the neck down, and they existed three million years ago.
The problem you have, once again, is your inability to understand that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. A hundred thousand years is virtually instantaneous by evolutionary standards.
Further, none of these problems Crow is discussing existed more than, at most, 1,000 years ago. So how did they present a problem for human evolution 10,000, or 100,000 years ago?
So again, Dave: where does any of this present any sort of difficulty whatsoever for evolutionary theory? It presents a huge problem for your "hypothesis," but then virtually everything presents a huge problem for your "hypothesis."
| Quote | | You make the comparison to the lottery and I understand what you are saying. But, I'm sorry, it just does not work that way. |
Dave, Incorygible has already cautioned you that his "lottery" analogy doesn't work for evolution. Did you miss this statement somehow?
| Quote | | Dave, just to be clear, the analogy above in no way reflects evolution. It merely demonstrates your error in logic here. |
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
