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.
As I said earlier, a no is always the potential answer.
I certainly would not expect God to answer it with " go take him to a doctor. "
If you find that answer yourself, you credit your parents, as do I. If you were born without the capacity to learn from your parents' instructions or had totally clueless parents... you sure are "lucky" that is not the case.
Go Troll someone else.
Popper is no longer taken seriously as a philosopher of science.
You are so delicate on the other side of the mighty Atlantic ocean. In many places in this country, there are roadkill laws, dictating what you have to do to convert into table fare the critter you just ran into in your pick up. Usually it just has to be tagged, to make sure you don't make a practice of running down white tailed deer to expand your bag limit.
So accident is meat.
Why am I not surprised to hear nothing more than crickets?
Sometimes the crickets speak louder than any words.
Indeed they do.
I think it is a mercy this particular trashy thread has died; and yet, I feel honour-bound to give shrinkermd one last opportunity to respond to my post #348 to him, which he has thus far chosen to ignore.
If he continues to ignore, then I think I can take that as all the eloquence anyone truly needs here.
You have no honor only ad hominems
My friend, there is no honour in bearing false witness.
And I do not bear false witness.
I invite you to find a single ad hominem I have directed at you. Perhaps some such statement of mine as this, from post #341?
I do not believe it is your intent to publish falsehoods. I have no reason whatever to doubt your integrity and do not do so; where I have pointed out where material you published is demonstrably and deliberately falsified, I have done so in order to give you an opportunity to make an appropriate correction and to distance yourself from such erroneous material.
Does that sound like an ad hominem to you??? Please point out where I have posted anything to you other than a correction of error, in no case accusing you of deliberate misrepresentation. I invite you to point out any error of fact in my posts to you.
Let your own conscience determine your own honour in our exchange. Let your own conscience tell you what witness you bear.
Or perhaps you feel it is more honourable to run away?
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.