Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
I am not sure why on one hand you agree with the study that they developed independently from seperate linages (which is my main point) yet call it 'bad science?' I am not sure why you think the seperate lineages are a problem - can you explain what it is you mean by this.
I am also not sure what Biblical Correctness has to do with my post?
|
There are any number of statistical population growth calculators available on the internet for free (and all of them at university web-sites.
Crunch the numbers.....do the math....and see the impossible.
Evolution is poorly taught. I'm not really sure why that is, but I'd guess Biblical Correctness is one of the primary causes. I really suck at sales. I could never perform a job that involved sales....
because I don't believe in it. Even if the product(s) or service(s) I was selling were of the highest possible quality and competitively priced based on the Market, I still could not morally or ethically justify selling something to someone, knowing that they didn't really need it (and probably couldn't afford it anyway). Using inherent abilities, talents and skills to sell things to people who don't really need them is too much like Göbbeling as far as I'm concerned.
And I really hate Göbbels and people like Göbbels and Göbbels-wannabes. So I would reason that people who don't really believe in Evolution, would loathe teaching, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except that many of them probably twist the concepts of Evolution into something that is a little more palatable for them.
My main criticism is the focus on Natural Selection. Natural Selection is not Evolution, rather it is one part of the process that may or may not impact Evolution.
At the end of the day, Evolution is gene mutation and nothing more, for without gene mutation, Evolution could never take place, with "
never" meaning "
at no time ever." Without gene mutation, Natural Selection is moot, since there is nothing
to naturally select.
The rate of gene mutation is the combined rates of natural gene mutation plus the rate of external gene mutation.
While the natural rate of gene mutation is relatively constant for any given species over time, the external rate of gene mutation is not constant, due to the fact that the external rate of gene mutation is caused by natural background radiation.
For that reason, the rate of gene mutation has decreased over time as a whole for all species, since the levels of natural background radiation on Earth have constantly been decreasing. In fact, at one point in the far-distant past, the levels of natural background radiation on Earth were so high, they would have killed an human within a matter of minutes.
Natural background radiation is a combination of space radiation --- protons, neutrons, gammas and X-rays from certain star-types, novas and super novas, plus solar radiation from our Sun -- ultra-violet, gammas, X-rays and protons (mostly), and finally radiation generated by the natural decay of radio-isotopes on Earth such as the uranium-series and their daughter-products, as well as other naturally occurring radio-isotopes (such as Carbon 14 -- there's also radioactive Oxygen) --- mostly gammas and X-rays, but also neutrons, protons, nuclei and fission fragments (from those radio-isotopes that undergo spontaneous fission like Uranium-235).
Several factors have resulted in the decrease of natural background radiation: the formation of Earth's atmosphere reduced both solar and space radiation; it was reduced further still during the Great Oxygenation; the formation of the Ozone Layer also blocked both solar and space radiation; and the volume or mass of radio-isotopes on Earth has decreased over time (lead and bismuth are the final products of uranium isotope decay for example).
There are four other factors that are also more important than Natural Selection, and those factors are
1] time to reproductive maturity
2] reproductive rate
3] gestation period; and
4] reproductive numbers --- litter sizes or number of off-spring.
Those four factors can be lumped together as simply "Birth Cycle," and together with the Rate of Mutation, you have a feed-back loop. A 5th Factor is time on Earth.
There a millions of single-celled organisms like bacteria, millions more that have not yet been discovered or identified, and then 100s of Millions that exist over history. Why?
I just explained why: The Birth Cycle of single-celled organisms and the Rate of Mutation influenced by the incredibly high rate of natural background radiation and their length of time on Earth.... Billions of years....has resulted in an extraordinary number of species of single-celled organisms.
We see the same incredible variation in sea-life and insects. Although by the time invertebrate sea-life and insects arise the natural background radiation is slightly less, which reduces the Rate of Mutation slightly, that is off-set by the Birth Cycle: those organisms reach reproductive maturity within minutes, hours or days, their gestation periods are in minutes or hours, occasionally days, but they produce hundreds and thousands of off-spring at one time, and they do that for as long as they live.
But as we move through the higher order animals, the vertebrate fish, reptiles and amphibians, we still see great variation, but not nearly as much. That is because they haven't been on Earth as long, and due to the fact that Rate of Mutation has declined with the decrease of natural background radiation, plus changes to the Birth Cycle: those organisms take longer to reach reproductive maturity, have longer gestation periods, and produce fewer off-spring (yet they do that until they die as well).
The variation among mammals is even less, and it decreases with the complexity of the organism.
There are six dogs and they've been around for a while (all other dogs were created by humans through selective breeding). It takes a few months to reach reproductive maturity, the gestation period is months and the litter sizes are up to an half dozen or so.
There are 4 horses (but more than 100 horse breeds due to selective breeding by humans). Horses have been round slightly longer than dogs, a couple of years to reach reproductive maturity, have long gestation periods in months, and produce one off-spring at a time, and even then only reproduce for a select period of years.
3 cows...that's all there are (the rest were created by selective breeding), who've been here a little less longer than horses, but also take a long time to reach reproductive maturity, have long gestation periods in months, reproduce only one calf at a time, and reproduce only for a set number of years.
Elephants....late arrivals. There are two: African and Indian (I suppose three if you include pygmy elephants). Elephants take years and years and years to reach reproductive maturity, have a 10 month gestation period, produce only one calf, and breed for a set number of years.
Knowing all that, would you expect to see a lot of variation in humans? Not really.
Humans haven't been around very long.
The Rate of Mutation has decreased as natural background radiation has decreased
It takes 12-15 years to reach reproductive maturity
There's a 9-month gestation period
Only one off-spring at a time (although rarely twins may occur)
The reproductive period is limited to 15-18 years --- up to about age 28 ("B
-b-b-b-but women in their 30s and 40s have children"....that's only due to the marvels of modern medicine).
Like I said...crunch the numbers.....do the math....and see the impossible.
A child is born with Blue Eyes. What happens next? Nothing. I get the distinct impression that some actually believe that suddenly everyone on Earth is transformed into a Blue-Eyed Devil or that the Bleu Gene is imputed into all existing humans....it doesn't work that way.
Let's look at something more practical, like the FOX SPS2 gene for Speech.
An hominid is born with it. How many human-things on Earth have the Speech Gene? Only 1.
13 years later.....how many human-things on Earth have the Speech Gene? Still only 1....assuming the child made it that far.
15 years later....how many human-things on Earth have the Speech Gene? Anywhere from 1 to 13, ranging in age from 1 to 28 years.
Anyone figure it out yet? Like I said...crunch the numbers.....do the math....and see the impossible.
*************
But that isn't what I really wanted to mention. I'm actually a little disappointed in the lack of Critical Thinking.
An
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is born.
You are alive.
Therefore.................
Homo Sapiens Sapiens was reproductively compatible with
Homo Sapiens, right?
Because if that is not true, then you do not exist.
An
Homo Sapiens is born.
You are alive.
Therefore....
Homo Sapiens was reproductively compatible with its progenitor, uh, whatever that might have been.
A
Neanderthal is born.
Did we find one
Neanderthal skeleton or many?
Many....therefore....
Neanderthal was reproductively compatible with its progenitor as well.
Does everyone see where I'm going with this?
What happened to
Homo Sapiens? I find it odd that the issue is skirted and no one says that
Homo Sapiens died out.
Homo Sapiens was compatible reproductive with
Homo Sapiens Sapiens, so one possible conclusion....a logical conclusion that is
Homo Sapiens interbred with
Homo Sapiens Sapiens until a point where no more pure bred
Homo Sapiens existed.
How do we know
Neanderthal didn't do the same, and is still here with us today?
In fact, you could same about
Homo Habilis and
Homo Erectus.
Assume
Homo Habilis to be the progenitor of
Homo Sapiens, then what is the logical conclusion? No doubt
Homo Habilis and
Homo Sapiens would have been reproductively compatible, and would have eventually been absorbed into
Homo Sapiens.
It suggests, but does not prove, that perhaps all hominids were reproductively compatible.
If it would be true, then it would explain a great deal. More importantly, that which is impossible now becomes possible.
And this is where Political Correctness and Biblical Correctness raise their ugly heads.....
you're not allowed to think like that....the ideas I've suggested here are heresy.....especially in the world of Academia.
Uh, so what exactly is
Homo Erectus Javanesis?
I already proved
Homo Erectus Javenesis is reproductively compatible with
Homo Erectus.
What if Asians or select groups of Asians are really
Homo Erectus Javenesis merged with
Homo Sapiens or
Homo Neanderthalensis (or both)?
For the nay-sayers, I have this to say: It's an irrefutable fact that both
Homo Neanderthalensis and
Homo Sapiens had two brains. It is an irrefutable fact that
Homo Erectus and
Homo Habilis had only one brain....each (I don't want people to get the impression they shared a brain).
It is also an irrefutable fact that both
Homo Neanderthalensis and
Homo Sapiens had the FOX SPS2 Speech Gene, and that
Homo Erectus and
Homo Habilis did not.
The nay-sayers are now left with only two possible options:
1] Not once, but twice...two separate species mutated to have the FOX SPS2 Gene and dual-hemispheric brains.....such parallel mutations are mathematically and astronomically impossible; or
2]
Homo Neanderthalensis and
Homo Sapiens both had the same progenitor, and since an evolved species is compatible with its progenitor, then it is more than likely they were compatible with each other.
Critically thinking...
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
