About what? That's not what I'm doing. If I have said something incorrect or inconsistent with the state of knowledge on the subject, please let me know. We weren't talking about Neanderthals, but we must have indeed shared a common ancestor with them. Where exactly they branched off, and if they interbred with other homo species remains to be seen. Since you can't even make a coherent argument on behalf of your cohorts, I'll make it for you. You appear to be making a "God of the gaps" argument. That is, since we don't have fossils of every tiny change between our ape-like ancestor and modern humans, the entire theory that we decended from apes must be wrong (therefore God did it). Not only do I know my side of the argument, I even know yours better than you do.
My point is that we are keeping up with what is 'coming out of Darwinism' but you are unable to respond to the criticisms I made and I assume it is because you are unfamiliar with some of the basic precepts let alone what is 'coming out'.
Also you are unable to name your sources or provide substantive evidence for your claims without payment first.
Hey babel, I use mainstream Darwindom sources for what's new in that world. What claims are you talking about? And speaking of claims, let's see you justify your claim that humans supposedly have a wide variety of non human ancestors. (This oughta be good.)
You don't care. You are intellectually incurious, except when it comes to evidence supporting your own particular views.
Science Types: When a wise man and a fool argue long enough it becomes difficult to decide who is the fool. Those who put down evolution, relativity, et cetera seem to have a belief system based entirely on faith even if they are not religious. It is amusing to make a remark or two, but a waste of time to argue at length. I often wonder if they cannot understand or merely do not want to understand science. Perhaps they were never really taught properly, although many of them seem educated and perhaps intelligent.
Dartmouth College man here, lots of intelligent Darwinites up there, but I started looking into all that, didn't pass the smell test. I put down Darwinian evolution (goo morphed into you), not evolution per se (natural selection within syngameons).
Major quick adaptative evolutionary changes to the environment, often referred to as one of the bases of "punctuated evolution" (pressure).
This thread started out (Feb 2004) suggesting that an aquatic animal gave birth to humans. I was listening to the radio today and heard that Dr Marcus C Davis (University of Chicago) has been doing research on the primitive paddlefish, which is described as a living fossil that first appeared about 250 million years ago. Dr Davis’s research found that in some fish the same genes that code for building fins will also code for the subsequent development of human hands and feet, then fingers and toes. Dr Marcus C Davis: “The take-home message of our study is that the genetics involved in making hands and feet is not a new invention in evolutionary terms, it in fact was part of the primitive fin pattern that then the ancestors of land animals essentially co-opted or exploited to make new structures.” http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1932210.htm In other words, the genes for building arms and legs were (still are) in some fish. It would simply be a matter of selecting the genes that code for building arms and legs. Not mutating and rearranging DNA as I suggested in my original post. Surely the fact that these genes are there would suggest that it is possible for an aquatic animal to give birth to a land based animal with arms and legs. If they can’t do it then why do they carry the genes? My original post suggested our aquatic ancestor swam from continent to continent and this explains the early migration of homo sapiens to Australia and the Americas. It is also now generally agreed that humans were in the Americas 30,000 years ago. It would therefore have been impossible for the first Americans to have crossed the Bering Straight 12,000 years ago (at the end of the last ice age) as previously suggested by the now discredited Clovis theory. The aquatic mammal hypothesis (as suggested by God Gametes) is therefore a much more likely scenario.
