>>I am in the position of a woman who has been raped by hundreds of men; <<
No, I don't think your are in that position.
Robert wrote:
>>Glenn wrote (in a separate post):
>During your absence, Robert, I cited several facts which you need to be
aware
>of. To me the most important fact is that today, one earth only one creature
>speaks--mankind. In order to accomplish this amazing feat of speech, an area
>of the brain, called Broca's area is required. Broca's area leaves an
>impression on the inside of the skull of you and I. Thus when we die,
>someone can look inside our skulls and tell that we were able to speak.
>
>Speech is a most characteristic feature of humankind. So guess what?
> Broca's area is also found in Neanderthal, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis.
> Thus there is evidence for creatures on earth with the characteristically
>human potential for speech for the past 2 million years.
>
>I raise this point because there is more to the evolutionist's lineage than
>you are mentioning. This feature of Broca's brain unites us clearly in the
>same category (creatures with broca's area) as Homo habilis.
>
>Secondly, there IS a gradual transition in morphological form from Homo
>erectus to Homo sapiens. There are no gaps which can be drawn. They start
>calling certain fossils archaic Homo sapiens about 4-500 thousand years ago
> Modern man appears 115-120,000 years ago. In between these times is a
>gradational scale.
Okay, Glenn, I know. More unbeatable evidence for evolution. Just like Joyce,
just like Yockey. Just like your Cambrian Explosion program. I will file this
for future investigation, but I am busy right now.<<
Robert, the thing that saddens me about Christians of your theological bent,
is that they are usually too busy to actually look at the evidence but are
not too busy to talk about how the evolutionists are not telling the truth
about those things they don't have time to look at.
Robert writes:
>>Glenn goes on:
>I know you don't hold that, but others on the reflector do. But by the way,
>there is more genetic variation than can be accounted for by Hugh Ross's
>maximal 60,000 year creation of man also. That is what the Mitochrondrial
>Eve and Y-chromosome Adam data is saying which was recently reported in the
>New York Times..
If you read the summary of the Y chromosome stories that I provided, then you
know that one study reported a variation of 50,000 to 500,000 years and
another reported a variation from 37,000 to 49,000 years. Reading further,
you would have found that the 37,000 to 49,000 year date was more reliable
because more nucleotide positions were surveyed. (100,000 versus 2,600)
Given that this kind of error is possible, it is certainly possible that
the "mitochondrial Eve" data is off by a factor of 10. Let me ask you
a question. If further investigation showed that "Eve" was younger (say
in the vicinity of 20,000 to 50,000 years) would you consider this evidence
against evolution?<<<
No, I would not necessarily consider this evidence against evolution anymore
than I consider the mitochrondrial Eve evidence of the Biblical Eve. In any
small population, over a few generations one female will become the ancestor
of everyone in the tribe. This means that the Mitochrondrial Eve is nothing
more than the lucky female for the larger population. She is not the
Biblical Eve at all.
glenn