Posted on 07/23/2006 9:36:42 AM PDT by tomzz
Assuming macroevolutionary scenarios were possible (they aren't), the question arises, how much time would you actually need for them? The basic answer to that question is known as the Haldane Dilemma, after the famous mathematician and population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who published his work in the mid 1950s. The basic answer is that you would need trillions and quadrillions of years, and not just the tens of millions commonly supposed. Walter Remine puts a simplified version of the idea thusly:
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.
Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”. The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.
That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.
But nobody ever accused evolutionists of being rational. Surely, they will argue, the problem might be resolved by having many mutations being passed through the herd simultaneously.
Most of the answer involves the fact that the vast bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal. ANY creature which starts mutating willy nilly will perish.
So much for the amount of time evolutionists NEED (i.e. so much for the slice of wonderbread on the bottom of the basic evolutionist time sandwich. What about the slice on the top of the sandwich, i.e. how much time do they actually HAVE?
Consider the case of dinosaurs, which we are told died out 70 million years ago. Last summer, scientists trying to get a tyrannosaur leg bone out of a remote area by helicopter, broke the bone into two pieces, and this is what they found inside the bone:
This is the Reuters/MSNBC version of the story
That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse.
In fact, we appear to have one state named after a dinosaur, Mississippi being a variation of the Ojibway name "Mishipishu", which means "water panther", or stegosaur. DeLoria notes that Indian traditions describe Mishipishu as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon.
In fact you find pictures (petroglyphs) of Mishipishu around rivers and lakes and Lewis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror of these since they originally signified as much as "One of these LIVES here, be careful".
The pictograph at Agawa Rock at Lake Ontario shows the sawblade back fairly clearly:
and the close-eyed will note that stegosaurs did not have horns; nonetheless such glyphs survive only because Indians have always gone back and touched them up every couple of decades, and the horns were added very much later after the creature itself had perished from the Earth.
You add the questions of other dinosaur petroglyphs and Ica stones and what not into the mix and it seems fairly obvious that something is massively wrong with the common perception that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago.
That is basically what I call the evolutionist time sandwich. They need trillions or quadrillions of years, and all they have is a few thousand.
What's Normal for one is Poisson for the other.
Creationism: Religion interfering with science.
Its too bad you are so blind on this, Race. Other than this one subject you are a pretty sharp character.
You allow your emotions to blind you.
Oh, and can you tell me why Astronomy isn't a target of Creationists? It also goes against Genesis.
How'm I "in the image of Darwin"
I don't call you a Christoid, do I?
I thought it was really cool that Whitefish Bay from the song (I think) is near here.
When you come from Los Angeles, there isn't much what you would call "lore." ;)
That is pretty good. But since I am Christian, I don't want to leave the wrong impression about my opinion of my fellow (sometimes bewildered) Christians.
I once lived in Athens, Georgia, where they spoke of "the Normal school." It worried me that there were so few that they all went to one school.
There's always the Legend of Zorro:
Now I'm hungry.
Time to eat!
Be back soon.
Go ahead and call me whatever pleases your fancy. Christians are used to the blathering of Darwinoids.
Unlike you, I gave a specific response. What have you posted that exempts you from thought of as ignorant? Let's hear some Christian Science.
Creationism: Rightly reading God's Word and believing what God said
EVOLUTION: Fairy tales for the uninformed
Mississippi being a variation of the Ojibway name "Mishipishu", which means "water panther", or stegosaur
lmao
I don't call people names. My religion considers it a sin.
Christians believe that God is the Creator and that nothing lives without his divine Will. Science based on Christian beliefs and values attempts to understand how God works his Will. I dislike the indoctrination tactics that some scientists and their secularist/atheist followers implement in science classes in essence attempting to exclude all other interpretation of the world to the exclusion of evolution...an obviously flawed and narrow understanding of life.
You and others here need to remember that science and reason as we understand it today could never have appeared without a foundation in Christianity.
Well I guess that settles that. Macroevolution is impossible because you say it is. So why did you bother posting the rest of the crap? Shouldn't we be satisfied with your say-so?
But what about the turtle on which the world sits?
well then we do share something valuable.
Buddha...where does he stand/sit on all this?
BZZZZZZT! Sorry no.
Evolution is figuring these guys out. (This is a cute little guy, too.)
Fossil: Taung Child 
Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)
Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)
Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)
Gender: Unknown (1)
Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)
Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)
Interpretation:
See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27
The song is about the Whitefish Bay that's part of Lake Superior. Whitefish Bay, the village is on Lake Michigan.
Gig? Are you working Festa?
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.