As a matter of fact, the existence of mammals and reptiles over nearly the entirety of the dinosaur 'reign' that Origin mentions above has a much greater relevance. A common anti-evolutionary refrain is the false dilemma as to why we still have reptiles/chimps/apes when we also have mammals/birds/humans. Surely, is the pretense, if we still have the one form, evolution simply cannot be so - because, of course, evolution 'raises up' all members of given taxonomic group at the same rate, together, en masse, successionally. No?
No. We have, right there, in hand, evidence of long, contemporary evolution of mammals and reptiles, followed by eventual replacement of reptiles as the 'top taxon' on Earth by mammals. For hundreds of millions of years. No ordinal and ubiquitous replacement of forms: just (mammalian) persistence, followed by radiative evolution and subsequent niche dominance. Why were there early mammals and dinosaurs together on Earth all that time? One should have eliminated the other! But no: because both forms worked in the roles into which they evolved, and changed as circumstance and opportunity allowed. Why are there still chimps? Well, why were there still dinosaurs when a perfectly viable rat-sized dinosaur was available?... for hundreds of millions of years.
Edit: As a note, I'd be interested to see what natural systems (as in: our systems) the anti-evolutionists could propose that would, indeed, raise up all members of a species simultaneously so that one should expect no chimps when we have humans, nor dinosaurs when we have mammals as well, nor reptiles when we have birds. Pray tell: what theory, proposed by whom and when, posits such a massive, universal and complete change?
Your opinion is not science. Adam and Eve are mythology and not science. The bible is mythology and not science.Evolution and Creation, in my opinion, based on the timing, addresses two different eras in evolution. Creation is about the rise of modern human consciousness, who has willpower and choice; Adam and Eve. The bible dates this transition about the 6000 year ago, which science says, coincides with the invention of writing. The first words of the bible are; In the beginning was the word and word was God. This is so obvious, that blind bias has made it hard for both sides to see.
What the invention of writing brought to the table, was helped to fix thoughts through written media. With only spoken language, the memory changes and people will begin to disagree as time goes on. The memory will begin to drift. If we write it down, get people to sign, when this memory divergence begins, we have a way to get back to the agreement.
If you were breeding dogs and needed to maintain a pure bloodline pedigree, if you did not keep records, memory drift and natural selection would cause the line to drift away. The writing keeps the choice in line in terms of family tree. Writing was needed so willpower could be sustained for long periods of time; writing can help oppose the natural drift of the mind. Law is something that is written and enforced, to prevent drifting away from intent of the law. An unwritten law is subject to subjective interpretation leading to drift and change; lack of willpower.
With Genesis one of the first written documents it provided a way to return to the original intent. It is not subject to either objective and subjective drift; maintained as was. It helps us to learn about the original changes into AS, through the eyes of those undergoing change and the pitfalls they saw. It is not 20/20 hindsight of science and the Monday morning quarterback; revisionists, but through the eyes of those in the game.
Your opinion is not science. Adam and Eve are mythology and not science. The bible is mythology and not science.
Why do you seem completely unable to discuss science with out making shit up or bringing in mythology?
Off topic, but isn't it high time to stop talking about "when the dinosaurs ruled the world" and start calling it "when the birds ruled the world?"
The dating of the writing of Genesis is about 6000 years ago. The invention of writing, occurred at about 6000 years ago according to science. What is the problem with an inference that adds 2 plus 2 and notice both things occur close in time. This is based on science dating. The bible begins; in the beginning was the word. Science show the word 6000 years ago was connected to the invention of writing..
Humans are still subject to natural selection.I like to speculate, if law of good and evil had not been written down, such that humans continued to relate to each other, based on natural instinct, we as modern humans would still be a part of natural selection. What would still be written down, would be observations of nature, science, invention, commerce, history and math, architecture and all things neutral and useful. Humans would be very advanced, but connected to nature in ways where humans are causing nature to evolve with them as they mature as a new species that is both inside and outside itself; instinct and tangibles of writing.
According to Wikipedia, it isn't even that old, being written during the Babylonian exile, less than 3,000 years ago.First of all the writing of the Torah was about 3500 years ago not 6000.
I've seen it pushed to 150KYA, but who's counting.The best current estimate of the transition to fully human occurred about 100,000 years ago.Creation is about the rise of modern human consciousness, who has willpower and choice; Adam and Eve. The bible dates this transition about the 6000 year ago.
Indeed, but there is considerable unnatural selection at work. Parents steer their children toward marriages within their own religion or within their own ethnicity, or practice hypergamy, marrying them to someone from a higher social rank or a higher income bracket.Humans are still subject to natural selection.
First of all the writing of the Torah was about 3500 years ago not 6000.
Secondly you wrote:
Creation is about the rise of modern human consciousness, who has willpower and choice; Adam and Eve. The bible dates this transition about 6000 year ago.
That's Genesis 1. Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve) is a completely different story.If you really do wanna nitpick the ol' texts, in Genesis the sun wasn't created untill the fourth day,
If Americans are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?
Each of these individuals was a genetic bottleneck, a time at which the human population shrank perilously--due to a famine, an epidemic, the sudden appearance of a more aggressive species of apex predator, etc.Anthropologists discuss a Y-chromosomal Adam and a Mitochondrial Eve, which is something about calculating the spread of genes back to a genetically common ancestor in either gender of the human race. Wiki says, "A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago."
Not all dinosaurs were in the therapod line, nor in the narrower line of those that led to the Aves. But: good ol' Troodon, eh? Russell's 'dinosauroid' was just a touch too humanoid, but one wonders, eh? What might have happened if the comet hadn't crushed them? - or, alternatively, led to the ecological damage that probably did them in.
In fact, what happened in that 12 million year gap (an enormous stretch of time, simply breathtaking) between the first identifiable Troodon and the K/T boundary? Mind you, if anything semi-intelligent came out of that, they didn't become world dominators anything close to us, simply because we'd be tripping over their bloody skeletons left right and centre. But it does make one wonder.
It's unlikely that there was a moment at which only one male human or one female human lived long enough to procreate,
I think you made a typo there Fraggle.Every every living human has the mitochondrial DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, and every living male human has the DNA of Y-chromosome Adam. (Males have both an X and Y chromosome, while females have only Y chromosomes.)