Replies

What I said was "while the chimp remained a small brained species". This is correct. The common ancestor we share with a chimp was a (relatively) small brained species, and while we developed a large brain, they REMAINED a small brained species (i.e. they continue to share that trait with our common ancestor).

It was about 6 million years or so (going from memory) to account for that 1% difference in the genes between us and a chimp. Looking at where that difference accumulated you can see a pattern. There is the most difference in DNA that doesn't code for protein. There isn't much reason for conserving it, as far as evolutionary fitness, and so random mutations tend to crop up there more frequently. The changes in the DNA within genes are mostly conservative mutations (every conservative should know about conservative mutations) that, while they make a difference in the DNA (some of that 1%)the amino acid they code for at that position is exactly the same; once again not much selective pressure to keep it "real" if you get the same result. Only a little of the difference actually makes a difference as far as the actual protein that gets made. Additionally there are only two differences between chimps and humans on the chromosome level.

So this is what is needed over 6 million years. A 1% change in the genes, that if it wasn't from random mutation and natural selection, it looks exactly as if it was; and two chromosomal differences.

And to bridge THIS little gap you want to throw out the Scientific method and turn it all over to the philosophical posturings of people so dense that they think that Scientists have some sort of fetish for material explanations.

I'd like to share how I view the Scientific method versus the Superstitious method.

On the one hand we have ideas put forth by the people using the Scientific method. It is based upon observable phenomenon and measurable results that can be replicated. Based upon this theories are formed to better predict and explain the phenomenon.

On the other hand we have the ideas put forth by people using the Superstitious method. It is based upon nothing but how someone "feels" about the symmetry of the universe and their philosophy of complexity and how it can't exist without being designed by something in this universe, but somehow can in some other never before seen plane of existence where God lives. Based upon this scientific theories are attacked, and Scientists decried for only seeking material explanations that can help to observe and predict the universe, rather than philosophically relying upon non material and unmeasurable explanations that cannot be observed or predicted.

As one's knowledge increases along the X axis, they go from the negative area along the Y axis of philosophical cretinism and the Superstitious method and rise into the positive area along the Y axis of acceptance of unknowing enlightenment and use of the Scientific method.

Mylo,

I'd appreciate it if you read my posts more carefully and less casually. I pointed out your mention of "while the chip remained.." not because I disagreed with its content, but because you had a minor oversight in your spelling like I had a minor oversight say we diverged from chimps.

I don't think established science says there was 6 million years to account for the 1%. As far as I know, it is more around 1-2 million.

As I said before, you did not get my argument. I am not for replacing the sci meth with superstition and "God did it so let's not research it." I am interested in undercutting some ridiculous underlying philosophies in the interpretation of scientific data. So when you multiply all the improbable events that, say, the human brain could have evolved give ABCDEF factors, you don't then say "well, that is ridiculously unlikely--but since there is no God then it must be the best explaination." That is philosophy.

Remember, I don't want the scientific method changed; I want the interpretation of data to reflect probability and the possibility that there could be a God.