Well I guess it's like when you take a picture of a person taking a camera and the flashes go off at the same time. (as for the posts going up) anyway I think we both kinda misunderstood each other on the net loss factor. I thought you were discussing the the changes in the actual genes in a species (that is the different combos of base pairs) What you really meant was the fact that humans have so many more base pairs. I will recheck my sources and get back to you on this. The article from wallace was interesting. I did find the argument between him and the ?duck guy quite interesting. The stuff about adapting is exactly that adaptation as the mechanism for evolution. There are two boats on this one, one is the slow change boat and the other is the slow change periods followed by times of rapid fluxes. Most evolutionists agree on the rapid fluxes. In the short time (only a couple million years)after the dinosaurs became extinct there was a virtual population explosion as there were when every other predominate family lost its predominance. Humanity could take into accoutn the extinction of the megafauna (giant bison, giant wombats, giant birds, etc) as its oppurtunity to rise. Sorry about the ramble. I do understand the argument of natural selection keeping the current population stable, however, in times of environmental crisis, ie ice ages, any small advantages can rapidly become the norm and eventually become a new species. One example of this woudl be the bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibiotics. As for the dating issue I think that we can be civil abotu this but we are both using some assumptions to explain our argument. The bible is seen as an assumption by me and the assumption that the various radioisotopes degrade at a constant rate is seen as an assumption by you. I think that we could bang our heads together on this one for a while. Now as I said before I think labs have been able to make a combination of compounds into a primitive organism. (or maybe I'm confused with the fact that they were able to produce the amino acids that are the building blocks) I'll look into it more as I will have a great deal of time over the holiday to research (hopefully) As for the wife, mine's isn't really upset by the fact so many things that she is really good ar are at times going over my head my basic understanding, (remember that I am an anthropologist, not an evolutionary archeologist) these topics get quite advanced and deal with people who work entire lifetimes things like the dating techniques, the genetics, etc. The whole evolutionary idea uses numerous branches of science (my wife works with physicists, herbologists, orthonologists, ichthyologists, chemists, mathemeticians etc) I'm not an expert on any of these least of all the physics and mathematical sciences.(I did take anthro for a reason:) Now as we both try to bumble onto a reasonable conclusion I will be goign to bed. Thinking of this darn forum again! PS sorry about doing all the editing everyone, I really need to learn how to preview my post before I post them.
