No probability that a mutation occurred in a few thousand years that changed h.erectus into h.sapiens. No linear progression, are evos blind they will not see?
You're making an error in assuming that current species, homo sapiens in particular, were the goals of the evolutionary process all along, and then looking backward and remarking that it was so improbable that these particular mutations would happen randomly so as to result in the existence of homo sapiens. Trying to get to a planned goal through a random process *is* pretty unlikely--it's like planning to win the lottery. But if you realize that homo sapiens is only one of many possibilities, it's like realizing that someone will win the lottery--you can't predict a winner before the lottery, even though it becomes fait accompli the second after the drawing.
The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species.
“The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species. “
There must have been great numbers of transitional skeletons left along that journey. Where could I view some?
BS. There are no fossils of hybrid homo sapiens, it was another "suddenly appeared" phenomenon Homo sapiens are a distinct species with a beginning point.
I have reread central va's post several times now and see no such assumption. Looks to me like he is questioning natural selection as an adequate explanation. Your lottery example is another argument to knock down a straw man of your own creation. You seem to have a habit of doing that, hand picking your inferences and definitions to create an argument that no one is making. You do it repeatedly as if any argument against evolution is an argument for creationism. I call it blowing smoke.
There is no theory of science that requires that a challenge of the theory must offer an alternative theory, yet you persist in attacking an alternative of your choice as if its either a choice between evolution or the alternative. I may have missed one or two, but I haven't seen any posting questioning evolution on the basis of some other theory. Most of the challenges are based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense. If one branch of science is inconsistent with another, only one can be right and I have lot more faith in the integrity of mathematics and information theory than evolution. It seems to be your belief that if someone believes in a different theory to explain the origin of species, that disqualifies from making any criticism of evolution and worse, makes their motives immoral. Wow! When does the heretic burning start?
Behe's work raises serious questions about the viability of evolution just as a mathematician's would, yet you dismiss them as somehow unqualified because they don't have your understanding, or shall we say belief, in evolution or training in the life sciences. And of course, you use math, and that is supposed to cover the mathematical objections to evolution?
By the way, I did a lot more reading about horse evolution and found most of the disputes are within the evolutionist community. How many times do species need to be reclassified, trees redrawn and pictures arranged to fix what was supposed to be "settled?" It has become so ludicrous that even species names are changed to fit the evolutionary model. Eohippus is a great example of name tampering that may eventually backfire anyway. At least there are some evolutionists with enough integrity to admit the answers are missing or there are some major problems to be solved.
I don't have a degree in the life sciences, thank God, or I might be in that universe of small minds that defend their theories by devious and disingenuous means. Shall I dare say such behavior is that of a charlatan?