Other than the obvious fact that the theory of evolution has progressed greatly since Darwin first wrote Origin of Species, this post is filled with ridiculous assertions..
This is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't call numerous holes being punched in the theory by modern scientific discoveries progression.
First, natural selection is not an intelligence. It does not detect anything. It does not throw things away or keep anything. It is a term describing the process whereby creatures which are better able to survive for whatever reasons do so, and therefor procreate and propagate their species, while those lesser able to survive do not. It describes a NATURAL process, not something driven by intelligence. To describe this process as though it is an intelligent being sorting through the world's creatures and keeping those it prefers is either disingenuous or ignorant.
The last two words here aptly describe your total inability to grasp the sarcastic point I was making about Natural Selection, i.e., the assertion by Darwinists it is some personified force capable of miracles. I was just regurgitating the idiotic claims of Darwinists regarding NS.
Second, no one is claiming anything about minor cosmetic changes being the driving force behind natural selection. To say that anyone believes 'On the road from Ape to human, the inbetweener died because someone noticed his brow bone protruded one millimeter less or they may have noticed he had two more hair folicles than his more advanced friend.' is, once again, either dishonest or a complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.
Since when is a larger brain a cosmetic change??? Complete misinterpretation of evolutionary theory? Really. So you are disputing the claim that somewhere between the early hominids, claimed to be ancestors of homo sapien by your Darwinist spin doctors, and homo sapien himself, there did not exist a species that was a single gradual step between the two distinct hominids at specific points in earth's history that had an a) smaller brain? b) more body hair? and c) a larger brow bone? Come on man, are you that dense?? According to TOE, even though we don't have any evidence of this transitional hominid, are you claiming there were no intermediate steps? I think in your assertion of my so called foolishness and ignorance, someone other than me has been revealed as the real fool.
Skhul and Qafzeh hominids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is an article that avoids the ASSumptive language of you clowns here and correctly uses terms like "may have" and "probably", since all the things you all state as fact can't be proven by the evidence at hand.
human species, origins of
You can deny the Bible, but don't you think it odd it has not really been contradicted by science? I think you will find that very few Christians subscribe to the "young earth" theory. Moses is the widely accepted author of Genesis. The Creation story was more than likely handed down by the oral tradition for thousands of years (maybe even 200,000 years) and Moses was just the first guy to write the stories passed down by the elders down on paper...
"Analysis of DNA in recent human populations suggests that H. sapiens originated about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a single female ancestor, ‘Eve’."
The whole lucy wishful thinking fiasco makes me wonder if an marterialistic paleontologists can be trusted not to fill in the blanks with info that supports their dying theory.
THE ERRORS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BOOKLET
