[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Running out of Puff?

[lordkalvan]

Which is precisely what you have been doing, as I indicated.

Eh, no, I haven't, as I explained.

I don't recall saying that humans are descended from chimpanzees, but I'll look it up and correct the statement if needed.

Selective forgetting, indeed. Here you are:

Remember, the foot of the chimpanzee has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man.

And:

Now the foot of the chimp has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man.

And your reply when I and cedward1 pointed out that evolutionary theory proposes no such thing:

.....

Over to you.

I missed Barbarian's explanation of the origin of the a. psychological differences and b. the metatersal ligament differences.

I was appalled at the disgraceful lack of comprehension of the differences between the microscopic pores between alveoli and the totally different structure of the lung of the birds - so I did not pursue the matter.

I have no idea what this red herring of self-justification has to do with the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that you perpetrate (and perpetuate) yourself.

I may express incredulity - but the flat-footed lack of, and any appreciation of, these factual phenomena which you first exhibit, and then attack me for, is, I feel, quite disgraceful in someone claiming some acquaintance with biology and the natural world.

You confuse appreciation with 'I don't believe X can have an evolutionary explanation, so it can't.' That's the incredulity I am referring to. I am criticizing not the presentation of the factual phenomena, but the pre-existing bias with which you present it and the disbelief of naturalistic explanations that you instinctively attach to it.

Not only that, but you have utterly failed to present any coherent accounting for the two questions which have been raised time and again. You have indulged in question-begging quite extensively, and in this post, there is a classic example which I shall belabour later.

A complete misrepresentation of how I have addressed your claims, comments, assertions, assumptions and questions. You are fixated on the picture you seem to have of yourself as the teacher here, presenting alleged 'facts' and then demanding that the class answer the two limited questions you have carefully framed and only those two questions. That's not the way it works. If you don't like your your claims, comments, assertions, assumptions and questions being challenged and are unwilling to reply to those challenges, then you shouldn't be presenting them in a forum where exactly that is going to happen.

I have made no assertions in these accounts...

Yes, you have.

...and refuse to dehumanise my descriptions.

I have no idea what you mean. I thought you were addressing natural phenomena for which you believe the only explanation is supernatural?

But to say that there are assertions which are unjustified...

Plenty of those, a few of which have been pointed out.

...and to say that the sources are questionable is grossly unfair, and completely misleading.

Not so. I and others have questioned your sources and pointed to failings in them; most of the time you have simply ignored such comments.

The fact remains that there is an enormous number of such phenomena as I have been describing, for which evolution cannot account and can only fudge.

There's another one of those assertions.

I am placing them on the board in the hope that readers who have some admiration for the natural world can see them, and perhaps join with me in my admiration.

Nope, you present them with the demand that an explanation satisfactory to you in terms of evolutionary theory be provided, you have decided that no such explanation is possible, and so you declare a supernatural explanation to be the only alternative. Here's a thought to consider: explanations based on evolutionary theory are incorrect, but this does not preclude some other naturalistic theory. In other words, you are perpetrating the fallacy of the False Dilemma.

If that is your idea of a Gish Gallop, then so be it,,,

My idea of a Gish Gallop is a series of multiple C&P long-winded threads posted full of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, assertions, assumptions and claims that the originator offers and leaves hanging in mid-air with numerous counter-questions, arguments, comments and points left unanswered while s/he dashes off to start another one in exactly the same format. If the cap fits, you should wear it.

...but the fact remains that you have been completely unable to account for the origin and genome entry of any of the phenomena I have presented.

Several posters have answered your empty claims, but you simply deny the validity of their points. You have quite failed to answer the overwhelming bulk of the questions you have been asked and points that have been raised around the material that 'informs' your two questions. Physician, heal thyself.

The facts trample evolution underfoot as surely as a horse would

Oh, look, another assertion.

My express intention is to destroy the theory of evolution, since it is a crassly incompetent theory...

Poisoning the well and evidence of a mind already made up.

...whose only support is the cunning debating tactics of its misguided supporters.

Well that would be 'only support' apart from more than 150 years' evidence from multiple lines of scientific research, none of which we have seen you address. Your only argument against evolutionary theory is to present things you find personally incredible of naturalistic explanations, declare no such explanations possible, invoke a supernatural cause and declare evolutionary theory discredited as a result. Tell us again what kind of scientist you claim to be?

It is a disgrace to the fair name of Biology, and I deeply resent the utter nonsense that has to be invoked in order to shore it up...

Well, what you should rather resent is the ignorance that leads you to categorize 150 years' of research and investigation and all the attendant evidence produced as a result as 'utter nonsense'.

...'fragile towers of hypotheses piled upon hypotheses' as W R Thopson once described it.

Why should I be impressed with quotemines from words written more than 50 years ago? Can you source this reference, by the way?

Rhea's theorising, if it can be dignified by that name, is typical of the torrent of tripe poured out by the evolution apologists. She is a chemist - but the stuff she has turned out would do credit to the junk the evolution establishment produces.

Careful, your bias is showing.

And you can't see it!

I can, however, see exactly where you are coming from and the dubious methodology that lies behind it.

Why? Because you were taught it at school and in the university - and you are totally blinkered by your education.

An assertion for which you have absolutely no knowledge at all. I disagree with you, therefore, that my education has 'blinkered' me. Can you offer any evidence beyond my disagreement with you that supports your claim?

As Steven Stanley said in Macroevolution (p2): if our knowledge of biology was restricted to the species presently existing on earth, "we might wonder whether the doctrine of evolution would qualify as anything more than an outrageous hypothesis."

However, as our knowledge is not 'restricted to the species presently existing on earth', your point in using what I presume is another quotemine from a secondary source that you have not checked for yourself is moot. If you believe that Stanley did not accept evolutionary theory, then you will believe anything.

As Denton said in 1989, (Evolution: A theory in Crisis p 158)Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis.

Except that we see plenty of organisms displaying intermediate and transitional features, so I suspect this is another carefully selected reference, especially as Denton describes himself as an evolutionist and has rejected biblical creationism (source: e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton).

Yet you support it in defiance of the blindingly obvious facts of natural history, and above all of palaeontology and biochemistry.

You have not shown that these 'blindingly obvious facts' exist at all and do what you claim they do, other than to assert this, so why you are so astonished that I don't accept your viewpoint is, itself, rather astonishing.

How else do you account for their ability to migrate from Goya to Capistrano - or from Alaska to New Zealand? Apart from the usual tower of nonsensical hypotheses?

Assuming your conclusion. There was no 'first bird' that one day flew from Goya to Capistrano - or from Alaska to New Zealand - never having flown anywhere else before. You have an almost comic strip-like view of this phenomenon.

Have you any evidence of your own assertions?

Plenty. Most of it you have simply ignored, the rest you have denied or handwaved away.

Perfectly true. They cannot be created by evolutionary mechanisms, and they cannot enter the genome by evolutionary mechanisms.

Unsupported assertions. Please show us how evolutionary mechanisms cannot produce the behaviour we see and how this behaviour cannot be genetically imprinted. Every time you have been asked to do this, you have simply refused to answer.

As I put it so picturesquely: one degree off and the birds would be belly up in the Pacific.

And you putting something 'so picturesquely' is supposed to be evidence of what, exactly? Rhea has already pointed out to you that the very article you reference tells you that birds get lost and end up in places where they 'shouldn't'. You still haven't given us your account of how the England overwintering blackcap warblers came to change their behaviour. Do you seek a supernatural explanation for this, as well?

More later.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying that supernatural guidance is the method? Because Darwin and Dawkins will nail your hide to the wall if that's what you mean. (Don't worry - mine has been there for years already).

If that's what you mean, then you and I have no quarrel - but you need to tell me that.

I'll leave this here till you give me an answer to that question.

Can you please comment on this question before we go any further?

As I read it, are you saying that supernatural guidance is what the birds use to navigate?

Or am I misinterpreting this?

A: They received that information from their parents, via the genome, I believe, otherwise they are being supernaturally guided - a possibility which I am not prepared to discount entirely, but will not pursue.

LK: Well, that’s what the best hypothesis is so far. I’ve seen you offer nothing that falsifies it.

 

[Asyncritus]

Selective forgetting, indeed. Here you are:

Remember, the foot of the chimpanzee has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man.
And:
Now the foot of the chimp has to 'evolve' into the foot of the man.

And your reply when I and cedward1 pointed out that evolutionary theory proposes no such thing:

Perhaps you've missed reading this sort of thing?

“The idea in anthropology is that last common ancestor is the chimp, a fighter and killer, so we have been doing it for 6 million years and chimps have been doing it for 6 million years,” Dr. de Waal said in an interview.

“If the last common ancestor was not a chimp, then the story changes and it opens up whole new ways of thinking about the human evolutionary story.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...il-skeleton-of-oldest-hominid/article1308179/

There you go - along with your comments.

Heh heh heh...

 

[lordkalvan]

If you disagree, then produce some evidence as to how these two phenomena (Plovers and Godwits) evolved.

Let's see you produce some evidence that they didn't; this is your claim, after all, but so far you have singularly failed to support it. What alternative hypothesis do you propose, how can it be tested and what evidence supports it?

Will you descend into the production of tripe?

I see. So reasoned and supported argument arising from your claims, assertions and assumptions, and questions designed to investigate further the simplistic basis of your 'two questions' amount to 'tripe'?

Or admit the truth?

The only 'truth' we have seen so far is your inability to support your claims and your denial, avoidance or handwaving away of questions and arguments that address it.

So the Gish Gallop was a false accusation.

Eh, no, it was entirely justified, as I have explained.

I make those claims and assertions because of the observed facts. That is called 'inference' and 'conclusions'.

Nope, you make those claims and assertions because of your personal incredulity, in pursuit of which you start multiple threads while numerous questions, arguments, comments and points remain unresponded to on threads you have abandoned.

I call on you to make your own claims, and justify them by using those phenomena.

And I call on you to answer those questions, arguments, comments and points directed towards your understanding of these phenomena and the 'inferences' and 'conclusions' you draw. Reaching a conclusion on the back of shaky premises - Asyncritus doesn't believe in evolution, therefore God did it - scarcely amounts to bringing scientific rigour to the study of your subject matter.

Surely your intelligence can distinguish between the words HOW and WHY? They are distinctly different questions, and demand completely different responses. Till now, you have utterly failed to show any ability to distinguish between the two, and most telling of all, you have produced no evidence to support your irrelevant answers.

This is a broken record; I have already explained on several occasions why 'how' is inseparable from 'why' and I have offered several quite relevant comments on the subject which you have chosen not to address.

You have fallen, on several occasions now, into Lamarckism, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.

Nope, I have not even hinted at Lamarckism, no matter how much you imagine I have and accuse me of so doing.

Because with the best will in the world, a reason for (= the WHY) a migration is no guarantee of it's success.

Nope, that's why some migrating animals get lost, get eaten en route, die of starvation, etc. So what?

It is certainly no guarantee that the route and the timing will be passed on to the descendants.

Nope, which is why some migrating animals get lost, get eaten en route, die of starvation, etc. Again, so what?

It is no guarantee that the way back will be found by the parents.

Well, if they're following the food, all they have to do is follow the food. See my brief explanation of possible explanations for cross-equatorial migration.

And it it decidedly no guarantee that the offspring will ever find it again in the absence of their parents.

Nope, which is why some migrating animals get lost, get eaten en route, die of starvation, etc. Yet again, so what? Oh, and not all birds migrate in the absence of their parents and certainly very few migrate alone at all. What impact do you think this has on the 'how' of migration?

So you can protest to your heart's content that a WHY is somehow an adequate explanation of something - but I am interested in the two HOWs, and evolution theory purports to answer those very questions.

Nope, I am saying that 'why' is part of 'how'. You seem incapable of understanding this. How simply do you want it explained?

Of course, it doesn't, and it can't.

What, you've not already made your mind up, have you?

Because, my friend, the distance involved in the 3 cases I have presented is a minimum of 2,800 miles and a maximum of 7200 miles. 400 is a bagatelle, and 20 is of no significance.

Umm, you haven't earned the privilege of calling me your 'friend' yet. That aside, however, given your assertion as to what is or is not 'significant' in terms of distance, am I to take it then that you believe that naturalistic evolutionary explanations for migratory behaviour that is not 'significant' are entirely plausible? I have asked you this question in a number of guises before, but you have assiduously avoided answering it whenever I have. Why is that?

You are compelled to make such a claim (of Lamarckism), like it or not. Let me walk you through it.

What you imagine I am 'compelled' to do is between you and your imagination.

The first Bird A migrates 400 miles for whatever reason, and is successful in finding food/whatever.

Okay, for the sake of seeing where your argument goes, let's grant this hypothetical case and ignore the 'why' for the moment.

It flies back home, and dies.

Not all birds that fly 'back home' die. So your point seems to be struggling already. Most barn swallows die in their first year, but successful adults can live up to eight years. What evolutionary impact do you imagine this might have? Oh, and as not all species of swallows migrate anyway, for example, why do you imagine some do and some don't? Why did God single some out for this behaviour and not others?

In order for the offspring now to set off and GET THERE, down a thousand generations, that information HAS TO ENTER THEIR GENOMES SOMEHOW from the first parents to make the trip.

Again you seem to assume that at some point a pair of birds that had never migrated at all, all at once migrated to some far distant destination. This isn't how it works (see my brief explanation of cross-equatorial migration again). I have raised this point before, but you have failed to clarify your understanding. Why is that? Oh, and populations evolve, not individuals.

But that is impossible. Acquired information CANNOT be inherited.

I never said it could, so this is a strawman argument on your part.

Therefore, the question stands. HOW DID THE OFFSPRING ACQUIRE THE INFORMATION?

Through descent with modification through natural selection, just like your children acquired the information for their hair- or eye-colour.

Honestly LK. Aren't you embarrassed to be talking such nonsense?

As I'm not talking it, why should I be?

The question before you is HOW DID THE FIRST BIRD (that wipes out the 'descent' bit)

a. acquire the information (that wipes out the genes)...

There was no 'first bird' that one day set off for, say Capistrano, never having flown anywhere else ever before. You seem to be quite incapable of grasping this point. Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

and b. pass it into its genes (that's Lamarckism)

Only under your strawman understanding of how this trait is supposed to have been acquired.

and c. pass it down to its offspring? (Again impossible - Lamarckism).

Populations evolve, not individuals. I have already pointed you to the fact that not all breeds of swallows migrate. Do you think this has any significance for your understanding?

I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying that supernatural guidance is the method? Because Darwin and Dawkins will nail your hide to the wall if that's what you mean. (Don't worry - mine has been there for years already).

If that's what you mean, then you and I have no quarrel - but you need to tell me that.

Eh, no. I was agreeing with the first part of your sentence, i.e. 'They received that information from their parents, via the genome, I believe...' Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I can't really believe you thought I was agreeing to a supernatural cause.....

I'll leave this here till you give me an answer to that question.

Okay.

 

[lordkalvan]

Can you please comment on this question before we go any further?

As I read it, are you saying that supernatural guidance is what the birds use to navigate?

Or am I misinterpreting this?

See the last part of my post immediately preceding this one.

 

[lordkalvan]

Perhaps you've missed reading this sort of thing?

“The idea in anthropology is that last common ancestor is the chimp, a fighter and killer, so we have been doing it for 6 million years and chimps have been doing it for 6 million years,” Dr. de Waal said in an interview.

“If the last common ancestor was not a chimp, then the story changes and it opens up whole new ways of thinking about the human evolutionary story.”
Scientists unveil skeleton of oldest hominid - The Globe and Mail

There you go - along with your comments.

Heh heh heh...

Oh, dear, how many sites dealing with human evolution did you have to avoid before you found this piece of authoritative journalistic research that in the space of two consecutive sentences can't even spell the name of the authority they are quoting the same way? So why you imagine they are quoting him accurately and reliably, I have no idea. Chimpanzees are an evolved descendant of the last common ancestor that they share with Homo sapiens, who are also an evolved descendant of that last common ancestor. That last common ancestor was not a chimpanzee; you might just as well claim that it was a human being with just as much accuracy. From the Smithsonian's site on the genetics of human evolution:

Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

Source: human origins.si.edu/

Heh heh heh, indeed.

 

[Asyncritus]

I wonder who de Waal works for. The university of Witwatersrand, I imagine.

But there's the statement of his opinion.

The Smithsonian can disagree with him as much as it likes and vice versa. They're all cut from the same piece of evolutionary rag, as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, does the Smithsonian comment on the origin of the psychological gaps, and the metatarsal ligament?

Or don't they know about these minor points?

 

[lordkalvan]

I wonder who de Waal works for. The university of Witwatersrand, I imagine.

You mean you don't know?

But there's the statement of his opinion.

Have you got anything better than a journalistic source that manages to spell his name two different ways in two sentences? Do you have anything from research papers that he has published?

The Smithsonian can disagree with him as much as it likes and vice versa. They're all cut from the same piece of evolutionary rag, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course they are and one reference is just as valid and meaningful as any other, isn't it? Tell me, what kind of scientist do you claim to be?

BTW, does the Smithsonian comment on the origin of the psychological gaps, and the metatarsal ligament?

What does this have to do with your reluctance to acknowledge that your implication that evolutionary theory supposes that Homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees is risibly and demonstrably wrong?

Or don't they know about these minor points?

I tell you what: your confidence in your ability to refute evolutionary theory based on what you have posted here so far is sky-high. Why don't you submit a paper presenting your ideas for peer review to the Smithsonian and let us know the result?

ETA I notice you failed to tell us how much you had to search to find this rather doubtful quote to support your views. You are aware that de Waal is an expert in primate behaviour rather than in evolutionary heritage? I guess not, as you don't even know which university he works at. He has done seminal and important work in understanding primate behaviour amongst bonobos and chimps with particular emphasis on how this impacts our understanding of human behaviour.

 

[Gazelle]

Interesting. What would be the homological end points? They first fly 5 miles and die...then..oh well, how would the long distance flying and navigational abilities be hereditary that way?

 

[Asyncritus]

You mean you don't know?

That's right, and I don't care much either. He can be from Timbuktu or Calcutta for all I care.

Have you got anything better than a journalistic source that manages to spell his name two different ways in two sentences? Do you have anything from research papers that he has published?

No. And, of course, the journalist was lying, misquoting, mistaken, etc etc etc. Damned journalists can't get anything right, can they?

Of course they are and one reference is just as valid and meaningful as any other, isn't it? Tell me, what kind of scientist do you claim to be?

A good one, I hope - who hasn't got his head stuck in evolutionary mud, as you guys have.

What does this have to do with your reluctance to acknowledge that your implication that evolutionary theory supposes that Homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees is risibly and demonstrably wrong?

It has an enormous amount to do with it.

If the Smithsonian or de Waal can't see the vast psychological gaps between humans and any other animals, like the chimps, then they should be fired - the lot of them.

But of course they can - and choose to ignore them entirely. If you read anthropological works, then can you tell me what they have ever said about these gaps and how they arose? 1 gets you 100 that they don't even mention them.

I tell you what: your confidence in your ability to refute evolutionary theory based on what you have posted here so far is sky-high. Why don't you submit a paper presenting your ideas for peer review to the Smithsonian and let us know the result?

If I write a paper telling them they have produced a vast amount of human evolution junk, and what explanations can they offer for the psychological gaps I mentioned, how far do you think I'm going to get?

I'll do better on this site. At least you're willing to talk. Tell you what, why don't you email my posts to them and let's have a good laugh?

ETA I notice you failed to tell us how much you had to search to find this rather doubtful quote to support your views. You are aware that de Waal is an expert in primate behaviour rather than in evolutionary heritage? I guess not, as you don't even know which university he works at. He has done seminal and important work in understanding primate behaviour amongst bonobos and chimps with particular emphasis on how this impacts our understanding of human behaviour.

So as a primate behaviour specialist he cannot know if men evolved from chimps or vice versa? Wakey, LK, wakey!!!

Mind you, from what you said about the Smithsonian comments, he really doesn't know a thing, does he - if the quote, which I linked you to, is a fair one.

(I didn't have to do much searching: I just looked on google for the most recent hominid discoveries, and this was one of the first to come up).

 

[Asyncritus]

Interesting. What would be the homological end points? They first fly 5 miles and die...then..oh well, how would the long distance flying and navigational abilities be hereditary that way?

Excellent question Gazelle. My point exactly.

Rhea? LK? Barbarian?

 

[Rhea]

Interesting. What would be the homological end points? They first fly 5 miles and die...then..oh well, how would the long distance flying and navigational abilities be hereditary that way?

One of the most common mistakes to make in studying evolution is to forget that evolution works on populations and not on individuals.

When a mutation has an evolutionary advantage, it can be an advantage of 10% survival increase. Or 1% or 0.002%. If the population is thousands of individuals, it does not take many generations for a mutation that confers a mere 0.1% survival advantage to permeate the entire group of 1000s.

So you make the mistake of thinking that one bird gets the mutation and it dies and the mutation is gone forever.

Here are two videos to show you how it can work. Go ahead and watch them, they are a minute or less in length.
Page of many different useful animations where these two relevant animations are listed among many other interesting ones.
==> go watch: Pocket Mouse and Predation
==> go watch: Pocket Mouse Evolution

So the answer to your question lies in knowledge of things like the pocket mouse, whose mutation for being black will show up every thousand generations or so. The mutation happens again and again, in other words.

In a population for birds, can a mutation that results in pressure/urge to fly further happen many times, and once happening, spread fairly quickly? Sure. And then when some die along the way, but still at a lower rate than others, it still -as a population - comes up winners.

It's not about individuals. It is about populations, that's your stumbling point, you keep thinking of only one bird.

 

[Gazelle]

(Chuckling.) Now how would you know what I was envisioning? LOL ok... I don't mean to sound argumentative... but what difference would it make if the whole flock flew 5 miles and died or just one at a time? I'm chuckling because the point was missed...I am unsure how a bird or a flock of birds can learn how to navigate over the ocean without navigating over the ocean. Plus, to fly over such is not the same as flying over land, thermals, currents, etc react differently than over land etc. There's no way to know how until you have learned how.

Unless, it's God's creation gift to the flock.

I'm not saying that some elements that Darwin incorporated into his premise aren't correct. But knowing Darwin's basic premise about the worth of human life, and his backing of eugenics etc., well I can't buy into his premissa even if one could connect his dots.

 

[lordkalvan]

Interesting. What would be the homological end points? They first fly 5 miles and die...then..oh well, how would the long distance flying and navigational abilities be hereditary that way?

Umm, I'm not sure what you mean by 'homological' in this context. And why do 'they' die after flying five miles? And why do 'they' fly five miles? And, even if 'they' do die, populations evolve, not individuals. In other words, successful birds have more successful descendants.

 

[lordkalvan]

That's right, and I don't care much either. He can be from Timbuktu or Calcutta for all I care.

Of course you don't care, you just found a doubtful reference that seemed to support your claim so you C&P'd it.

No. And, of course, the journalist was lying, misquoting, mistaken, etc etc etc. Damned journalists can't get anything right, can they?

Well, they can't spell de Waal's name the same way in two sentences, so that might be a clue as to the reliability of the article.

A good one, I hope...

Still reluctant to get specific, I notice. It's always better travel hopefully than to arrive, I suppose

...who hasn't got his head stuck in evolutionary mud, as you guys have.

Can you please explain again the methodology that underlies personal incredulity as a sound basis for drawing scientific conclusions from evidence?

It has an enormous amount to do with it.

If the Smithsonian or de Waal can't see the vast psychological gaps between humans and any other animals, like the chimps, then they should be fired - the lot of them.

How does this have an 'enormous amount to do' with your reluctance to acknowledge that your implication that evolutionary theory supposes that Homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees is risibly and demonstrably wrong? By the way, you again demonstrate your ignorance of the work of someone you quote at second-hand to support your erroneous claim about the evolutionary origins of humanity: de Waal argues in Our Inner Ape that human intelligence has changed the very nature of evolution itself.

But of course they can - and choose to ignore them entirely.

Where is your evidence that they 'choose to ignore them completely'? Your only complaint seems to be that they choose not to agree with you, which is something rather different.

If you read anthropological works, then can you tell me what they have ever said about these gaps and how they arose? 1 gets you 100 that they don't even mention them.

Well, if you read de Waal, for example, rather than just quoted him at second-hand from a doubtfully reliable source, you'd see that much of his professional career has been devoted to studying behaviour in various groups of primates and how this behaviour has evolutionary antecedents and implications. So I guess this is something else that you prefer your own ignorant opinion to over actually doing some research around the subject.

If I write a paper telling them they have produced a vast amount of human evolution junk, and what explanations can they offer for the psychological gaps I mentioned, how far do you think I'm going to get?

Not very far because you will have to do more than just tell them, as you will be aware if you are the scientist you claim to be.

I'll do better on this site.

Well, that would be because this is a discussion forum where opinions, no matter how wacky can be posted freely within the forum's rules, whereas a scientific journal has certain professional standards to maintain in order to avoid becoming a laughing stock. In other words, it will peer review anything you submit in order to ensure that it has merit and has something other than personal incredulity driving its 'findings' and conclusions.

At least you're willing to talk. Tell you what, why don't you email my posts to them and let's have a good laugh?

They're your posts, you email them and tell us the response.

So as a primate behaviour specialist he cannot know if men evolved from chimps or vice versa? Wakey, LK, wakey!!!

Well, then, so when de Waal argued in Our Inner Ape that the evolution of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos followed a different track from ours, how do you imagine this supports your second-hand quote that he believes humans evolved from chimpanzees? Can you find any other source - such as a scientific one rather than a journalistic one - that supports your claim, or is this your only reference?

Mind you, from what you said about the Smithsonian comments, he really doesn't know a thing, does he - if the quote, which I linked you to, is a fair one.

Well, that's the 'if', isn't it? You have no clue whether or not the quote is either fair or even accurate, do you? And as you've already admitted that you're not really interested in finding out, I guess you don't particularly care either.

(I didn't have to do much searching: I just looked on google for the most recent hominid discoveries, and this was one of the first to come up).

Maybe you should have searched under 'last common human ancestor', as that was the actual question. And maybe you should have referenced a scientific source rather than a journalistic source - you know, like the Smithsonian. When I searched under 'most recent hominid discoveries', your reference didn't appear amongst the first 20 to come up.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now how would you know what I was envisioning? LOL ok... I don't mean to sound argumentative... but what difference would it make if the whole flock flew 5 miles and died or just one at a time?

I am struggling with why you imagine this flock is flying five miles at all never mind dying at the end of the flight whether collectively or individually.

I'm chuckling because the point was missed...I am unsure how a bird or a flock of birds can learn how to navigate over the ocean without navigating over the ocean.

Yes? And?

Plus, to fly over such is not the same as flying over land, thermals, currents, etc react differently than over land etc. There's no way to know how until you have learned how.

The higher you are, the further you can see: at sea-level you can see about 5km; at 600m you can see around 90km; at 3000m you can see about 200km. Birds have much better acuity of vision than we do (source: e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision). Long migrations began as shorter migrations. Landforms did not always have the configuration they do today. Birds would fly to a landfall they could see. If the distance to that landfall progressively increased, successful overflying of intervening barriers would increasingly favour birds (and their descendants) that had more stamina, better navigational abilities, etc.

ETA During the last Ice Age, sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, were more than 100m lower than they are today (source: w ww.gly.fsu.edu/~donoghue/pdf/donoghue-climatic-change.pdf). Birds migrating from Central and South America could 'cut the chord' by overflying the sea. As sea levels progressively rose, the chord that was cut would become longer until, eventually, flying from one landfall to the next would entail flying out of sight of land.

Unless, it's God's creation gift to the flock.

There appears to be no evidence of any such gift.

I'm not saying that some elements that Darwin incorporated into his premise aren't correct. But knowing Darwin's basic premise about the worth of human life and his backing of eugenics etc., well I can't buy into his premissa even if one could connect his dots.

I fail to see how Darwin's views on the 'worth of human life' or 'his backing of eugenics', whatever they might be, have any impact on the soundness of evolutionary theory.