Human evolution; Arthropithicus walking on ground (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 04, 2019, 19:06 (166 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is a prime example of itty-bitty evolution, proven proven by the fossil record, though we have always agreed that Darwin was wrong to claim that “Natura non facit saltum”. I’m glad you now accept that Darwin’s itty-bitty theory is at least partly true, and of course you are still left with the problem of how to reconcile this with your own anthropocentric interpretation of evolution as summarized above.

DAVID: I view nothing about the Athropithicus developments as itty-bitty. The quote above specifically states "large scale evolutionary changes' come from past history. You see iity -bitty, I don't.

QUOTES: "The way that humans walk—striding bipedalism—is unique among all living mammals, an attribute resulting from myriad changes over time. (dhw’s bold)
"'The human body has been dramatically modified by evolutionary processes over the last several million years in ways that happened to make us better walkers and runners," notes Prang. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: If the fossil record shows that bipedalism and the human body reached their final form as a result of myriad changes and dramatic modifications, how can you honestly claim that this is not an itty-bitty process?

DAVID: Have you forgotten, from the fossils we have the brain size jumped 200cc each time it enlarged, which then involves birth canal problems as well as skull enlargements. Not tiny steps at any point.

dhw: Some steps are small (why do you suddenly ignore the history of bipedalism?) and some are large, but they are all itty-bitty if you believe that your always-in-control God’s sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens. Do you really think that a larger brain or a different shaped/sized birth canal is an innovation? Why bother with these “myriad” interim stages of brain, pelvis, big toe etc.? And why bother with the complexities of the whale if all he wanted was humans? The answer is that in both cases you have no idea, but you insist that this was his chosen method of designing the only thing he wanted to design.

Evolution requires steps to reach a goal. No matter how hard you try to make the steps as small, the design requirements and the gaps in forms is very large. Each step in whale evolution is the result of highly complex phenotypical and physiological design steps. In my view as God chose evolution to reach His goal of large-brained humans He knew He had to provide a larger bush of eco-niches to feel everyone on the way over lots of time. I don't know why you cannot see that as totally logical?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum