which indicates that dinosaurs died out much more recently than 60M years ago. Other evidence supports a much more recent die-out of dinosaurs; Google searches on "ica stones" as well as on 'dinosaurs' and 'petroglyphs' turn much of that up.
A Google search on "Haldane dilemma", on the other hand, turns up the fact that the amount of time evolutionites actually NEED is going to be measured in quadrillions of years and not millions or hundreds of millions or billions or even trillions.
The Haldane dilemma is higher arithmetic, and not higher math. Walter Remine describes a simplified version of the idea thus:
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.
In other words, even given a rate of substitution fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes 10M years ago, the furthest along evolution could get in that much time would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.
People who have done the math claim that even if evolution could account for our present biosphere (it can't), it would take quadrillions of years to do so.