How do you know God isn't dead?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Stat
Asking to have an extinct organism produced eh? Hopefully you won't live long enough to see that fortress of ignorance assaulted, eh? Trouble is, you probably will.

There's plenty of difference between the two populations (aborigines and europeans)- so far as difference goes between human beings anyway. It's roughly 40k since migrations, 13k of separation, Stat. We've been anatomically modern for 140k, behavioral for at least 50k. There is no convergent evolution in this scenario (because the pople who made that trip we're already "us") but there is divergent evolution between those populations. Just as expected, just as predicted, just as observed. At least try to get this shit right if you're going tell us what does or doesn't add up to you. As to what drove the adaptation (in truth the thing that drives adaptation is living long enough to have sex - nothing more or less) we pin all of this on, depends on who you ask. One camp says standing upright, another figures that language and communication would have done the trick. We seem to be learning more and more, that our primitive ancestors weren;t quite as primitive as we once thought in any case. Ultimately though, these are the things that would have whittled a population down along successful lines. The driving mechanism of these changes is mutation. Well attested, frequently occurring - and still ongoing...even in you.

We -are- talking about the unifying theory of biology Stat, so yeah, we're talking physical sciences. We're talking about geology and physics, so yeah - we're talking about physical science. Case in point....we're talking about the single-most well evidenced, well established, and thoroughly tested theory in -all- of the physical sciences.

Plenty of criteria to meet to be classified as an ape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape There you go bud. Educate thyself.

You'll have to forgive me, but a man who doesn't understand, or doesn't care to know what makes an ape an ape - or that biology and geology are physical sciences - isn't going to get much of a rise out of me with some intellectual laziness quip.

Natural selection is winnower, a reducer of things. Without natural selection you still have evolution. What's inconsistent (with the theory you clearly have -never- taken the time to look into) about human beings developing those big brains of ours before they needed to do algebra? Are you having difficulty comprehending the complete and utter lack of top down or goal oriented guidance in this process? Lets run a scenario through our minds. An organism lives in a glass box. We suck all of the air out of the box. What do you think is going to happen to the population if they have to develop anaerobic respiration as a response to this stimulus? If you guessed "they're likely going to die" you'd be right. This is the situation you're imaging with regards to our ability to count. You find it absurd because it is, you just don't understand -why- it's absurd.

While we understand the power of selective forces - those selective forces do not exert any influence over selectively neutral mutations (the vast majority of mutations expressed in living organisms). If you have a mutation that confers no advantage - and is not deleterious (you have a few-unique between you and I, btw) - then all you have to do is survive long enough to reproduce. If you're out competed - then it isn't based upon the metrics of that mutation but another - which amusingly, doesn't always work to our benefit. A shitty mutation, selectively neutral and non-deleterious, can be expressed in a population very widely for reasons entirely unrelated to that mutation.

It's not like this stuff is hidden away and out of view. It's middle school biology. If you wanted examples you have easy access to them. Constantly moaning about how I do not provide them does what? See that bit above about intellectual laziness?

Well, we could certainly entertain the notion that even though we're pretty good at this whole biology bit, and understand how all of those things come to pass - and even though the explanation we have fits our observations and makes successful predictions........we could be wrong. Perhaps that against all odds and reason - common descent is inaccurate in some way. Perhaps you'd like to suggest an explanation that's at least commensurate with the one we currently have?

You seem to think that I'm out to prove biology to you. You're mistaken. I'm trying to help you though your inaccurate concept of modern synthesis - a concept utterly divorced from the reality of modern synthesis in every conceivable way. Whether or not you would put your chips behind it is irrelevant, at the very least you'd have the opportunity to competently argue against it...if you understood what you were arguing against in the first place. This is often the trouble with cretinists. They argue -for- their own fantasies, by way of arguing -against- their own fantasies. You don't have an excuse, we've been here before.

As a minor point of clarification, with regards to a convo you're having with someone else

That’s a huge debate amongst Darwinists; Creationists align themselves with the punctuated equilibrium side.

Cretinists do no such thing. Puntcuated equilibrium is the realm of empirical observation and biology. Cretinism is the realm of spirits. I understand why one might want to associate their fairy tales with science, why they might worship at another's altar - so to speak- but it doesn't apply in this case. The very moment one invokes ghosts as a mechanism - they've left science right about the speed of light. There's no sense in pretending otherwise. If you're going to defer to magic, at least fucking own it. Is that too much to ask?