<<Jim, you said earlier that you thought my claim that this transition
probably took 1000's of years was "unreasonable". Why? I agree we
can't *prove* that it was naturalistic, but we similarly can't prove
that it wasn't.>>
See Stephen Jones's posts in this regard. One good quote from Eisley was:
"Each one of these major points demanded a multitude of minor
biological adjustments, yet all of this-change of growth rate,
lengthened age, increased blood supply to the head, moved apparently
with rapidity. It is a dizzying spectacle with which we have nothing
to compare."
And see my quotes of Jeffrey Goodman earlier as well, which corroborate the
above. Your view is unreasonable not simply because you can't prove it, but
because everything we know about how naturalism operates points decidedly away
from it.
<< But I didn't
know that molecular evidence has shed any light how gradually or
suddenly modern man appears. Any details? (The "Mitochondrial Eve"
studies are talking about earlier times).>>
"Mitochondrial Eve" studies are talking about the appearance of modern man.
Davis and Kenyon state: "If the theory turns out to be confirmed in some
reasonable approximation of its current form, it would have three major
implications in man's quest for his ancestry: 1. It woud mean that humanity,
as represented by its contemporary peoples, is dramatically younger than
traditionally conceived by most scientists. 2. It would eliminate Neanderthal
as a candidate for ancestry to European peoples. 3. It would eliminate the
vast majority of Homo erectus populations across Europe and Asia as ancestral
to man..."
Jim