Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Quote
Susan Doris: I think 'speculate' is the wrong word. Questions arising from observations and ideas are constantly being raised, but unless tests can be devised to verify the guessed-at, possible answers, then you are back to your starting point of a guess.

Speculate is all we can do. When all we have are fossils that are hundreds of thousands of years old then we are only guessing. On top of that the fossils we do have seem to pose more questions than they answer. It seems you are attempting to relate our evolution to a gradualist evolutionary process when there is clear evidence of some form of intervention; (i.e. advanced technology).

Quote
Susan Doris: And why do you say 'driving it'? Random mutations, natural selection, might - did- mean that species with lucky adaptations etc survived, those without did not. No species knew what the future would be nor could they plan for it.

That is pure Darwinism – I would have thought that anyone who understands simple multiplication and division, in the possession of a pocket calculator, could work out that the ‘random mutations’ concept is a load of bunk.

From my book God Gametes 4 and The Darwinian Fallacy:

Quote

[b]Chapter 5[/b]

[b]The Probability Myth[/b]

[b]The speed of light:[/b]

The more we study the universe the more we are amazed. The most remarkable thing we learned is that it is big; so big that distances in astronomy are measured in light years. And even when measuring distances in light years we soon become lost in a maze of zeros. Light travels:

• 1,080 million kilometres per hour or,
• 9,500,000 million kilometres in one year

It is almost impossible for people to get a mental picture of such speed so let us use another example: Take a one kilogram packet of rice. Count out 1,000 grains which you will find comes to one tablespoonful that weighs 20 grams.

[i]NOTE: If you take the trouble to count out 1,000 grains of rice you may find it will slightly over-fill an average table spoon and weigh a little more than 20 grams. In regard to the weight, rice bought in a shop has high moisture content and if dried, its weight will reduce. Also note that the 20 grams has been used for the sake of simplicity. Later in this exercise we round up 8,760 (hours in a year) to 10,000 and thereby offset this gain.[/i] 

One kilogram of rice, therefore is 50,000. So one tonne is 50 million grains.

For example:

1 full tablespoon = 20 grams = 1,000 grains

50 tablespoons = 1,000 grams (1 kg) = 50,000 grains

1,000 kg (1 tonne) = 50 million grains

A tonne of rice will fill to capacity the average courier van, tray top or farmer’s pick-up. Most courier vans, tray tops or pick-ups (utilities) are licensed to carry one tonne or 1,000 one kilogram packets.

What has been illustrated here is looking at big numbers in terms of weight and volume. Think of 50,000 as something that looks and feels like a kilogram of rice. Think of 50 million as something that looks and feels like a tonne of rice. So in terms of the enormous distances in astronomy and of the speed of light, the following example is as illustrative:

Let us equate driving on the open road at 100 kph to 100 grains of rice or less than one teaspoonful. Then to flying Melbourne to Sydney at 800 kph or 800 grains of rice (less than one tablespoonful) and realising that a jet will break the sound barrier at 1,200 kph (1,200 grains of rice or more than a tablespoonful).

The speed of light however is over one billion kph or 1,080 million grains of rice.

Let us then, work the figures …

A tonne of rice has 50 million grains.

To calculate how many tonnes, therefore, we must divide 1,080 million by 50 million.

1,080 ÷ 50 = 21.6 tonnes of rice

To sum up … 100 kph in a car ~ less than a teaspoonful

The sound barrier ~ more than a tablespoonful

The speed of light ~ 21.6 tonne  

[b]Stars in the universe:[/b]

• The moon is 300,000 km from earth (the distance light travels in one second)

• The sun is 150 million km from earth (8.5 light-minutes from earth)

If the sun, then, blinked out at precisely noon tomorrow it would be 8.5 minutes past noon before the earth would be plunged into chilled darkness forever.

• The solar system ~ a few light-hours across

• The nearest star ~ a little less than 4 light years from earth

• Our galaxy ~ 100,000 light years in radius

• Andromeda, the nearest galaxy ~ 2.5 million light years away

• Astronomers have observed distant galaxies ~ 10 billion light years from earth.

We are told there are 100,000 million stars in 100,000 million galaxies.

If this is so then the number of stars altogether is the figure one followed by 22 zeros.

From here on we will refer to it as simply ‘10,000 million-million-million’.

[b]Equating stars in the universe to grains of rice:[/b]

To keep our relativities in context, let’s again compare this figure to grains of rice.

If we had 10,000 million-million-million grains of rice and it needs transporting we first need gauge the size of the pile. Would it all fit into a super-tanker? Is it more or less than all the rice in China? Or all the rice in the world? Or is it more rice than has ever been grown on planet earth?

Our one tonne pick-up holds 50 million grains.

So we must make 200 million-million trips.

Even 40 tonne semi-trailers would need 5 million-million trips.

Advancing the exercise quickly makes it clear that even using a thousand 40 tonne semi-trailers each taking a load every hour, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it would take 500,000 years to transport all our rice.

For example:

1 tablespoon = 20 grams = 1,000 grains of rice

50 tablespoons = 1,000 grams (1 kg) = 50,000 grains

1,000 kg (1 tonne) = 50 million grains

40 tonne truck = 2,000 million grains

1,000 40 tonne trucks = 2 million-million grains

1,000 x 40 tonne trucks each taking one load an hour for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year:

24 x 365 = 8,760 (or round up to 10,000) = 20,000 million-million grains

Number of years:

10,000 million-million-million ÷ 20,000 million-million = 1,000,000 ÷ 2 = 500,000 years

[b]Summary:[/b]

We had our 10,000 million-million-million grains of rice (same number as stars in the universe).

We had 1,000 40 tonne trucks each taking one load an hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (if you care to work the numbers this is 1,000 trucks carrying away more than 11 tonnes of rice every second).  

However it will take 500,000 years to shift the rice so if you began loading it 150,000 years ago when our first human ancestors climbed down from the trees and kept loading 11 tonnes every second up to the present you would still have 100,000 years to work before reaching even the half-way mark.

So of our four options, the answer is that your rice was more than has ever been grown on planet earth.

[b]Monkeys bashing away at typewriters:[/b]

Most people when first contemplating life and the universe have said; “It could not have all just happened by accident.”

At school our teachers probably told us we did not appreciate how long earth and the universe had been around and that if there were enough time and throws of the dice, then even the most improbable events were possible. They would also have likely said; “If you have enough monkeys bashing away at enough typewriters for long enough, then they will eventually come up with the complete works of William Shakespeare.”

We do not hear that argument these days and maybe that is because too many have sat down with pen, paper and pocket calculator and crunched the numbers … to find that the ‘monkeys bashing typewriters’ argument does not stack up.

Scientists have found that our universe has many properties that need be exactly right and that if all these were not so finely tuned, there would be no universe. And that is why our universe is sometimes referred to as the Goldilocks Universe. In other words it is all “just right”.

A documentary made for Channel 4 in the United Kingdom called Testing God addressed this issue. In it Neil Turok, Theoretical Physicist from Cambridge University, discussed this incredible fine-tuning. He said that scientists have made many attempts to calculate the probability of a Goldilocks universe popping into existence by chance, but they kept getting figures that didn’t make sense scientifically and which left them contemplating probabilities that were impossible.

Neil Turok said the probability of this fine-tuning happening by accident was one chance in 1:10 (120). 10 (120) is a figure that has 10 followed by 120 zeros.

Some will claim that unless the probability were zero, it could still happen. Yet the parameters by which our universe exists, whilst large, are not infinite. We have fairly accurate assessments of its size and time of creation, so the chance of hitting on the correct formula for creating our universe, has a finite probability.

Let us then, apply the above probability of 1:10 (120) to the monkeys bashing typewriters exercise:

Imagine we had as many monkeys as there are atoms in the universe; and an atom is indeed small. For example, if we have a rock the size of an orange, made up of tiny atoms and if we expand the rock until the size of planet earth, then the atoms will now be the size of cherries.

If we were to look at this the other way round, we have an object the size of the earth, full of cherries. If we shrink it to the size of the rock, then our cherries would be the size of atoms. It is estimated that the number of atoms in the universe is 10(80) or one followed by 81 zeros.

So we have as many monkeys as atoms in the universe. Let us then assume each monkey has a typewriter and hits 2 keys in every second in every minute of every hour of every day of every year since the big bang!

The estimate of time since the big bang is 13,700 million years yet in this exercise we will, in an attempt to keep the multiplication simple, be generous and allow 16,000 million years. Our monkeys, therefore, must hit the typewriter keys at the following rate:

For example:

Half seconds in a year: 63 million

At 16,000 million years since the big bang:

63(6) x 16(9) = 1(18) … one followed by 18 zeros.  

Number of atoms in the universe (our number of monkeys) multiplied by the number of half seconds since the big bang: 1(81) x 1(18) = 1(99) … one followed by 99 zeros

But the probability of the universe coming into existence by accident is one chance in one followed by 121 zeros. So it looks like our monkeys will fall somewhat short: 1(121) – 1(99) = 1(22) … or a probability of 1:1(22)

And isn’t one followed by 22 zeros 10,000 million-million-million? The same number as stars in the universe? And didn’t we work out that if all those stars were grains of rice and we had 1,000 40 tonne trucks operating around the clock it would take 500,000 years to carry all our rice away?

So if we had all those monkeys with all those typewriters hitting two keys every second since the big bang, could anyone really believe it possible they had any chance of accidentally twiddling the knobs to make possible a universe as complex as ours?

They had the same chance as a person randomly selecting one grain of rice from our pile containing 10,000 million-million-million grains!

[b]It did not have to be our universe:[/b]

In response to the above a Darwinist will likely say, “The probability of one to one followed by 121 zeros is the probability of creating ‘our’ universe. Our universe is one specific creation in time. All those formulae that would not work here might work somewhere else, and at some other time.”

So let us consider this argument in the following light by asking two questions:

1) What formula is it that might work somewhere else?

2) How difficult might it be to find?  

We will again be generous and allow that any formula that is not random might work somewhere else. For example, if you walked into a room to find 10 coins scattered on the floor you would expect some to be heads and some tails. However if you discovered that all were heads or all tails you would find it difficult to believe this could have happened by accident. You would say that this could not be a random event.

So in the case of our monkeys bashing typewriters, we will accept anything they produce that is not random. It does not have to be a magical formula that would create something complex. It does not even have to make sense. It needs only to have some evidence of order like the ten coins that were all the same side up.

Statistically the easiest way for our monkeys to type something non-random is to firstly type out a line of gibberish and then duplicate it. For example, one of our monkeys bashes out 69 characters of meaningless text using only the 26 characters on the typewriter and the space bar …

nkhdienahelru oqbe bsyrhpokjnaybenjhgfskllri unsbnmrklnmcdmnbv wuifnd

It then types out a second line exactly the same …

nkhdienahelru oqbe bsyrhpokjnaybenjhgfskllri unsbnmrklnmcdmnbv wuifnd

nkhdienahelru oqbe bsyrhpokjnaybenjhgfskllri unsbnmrklnmcdmnbv wuifnd

We now have 138 characters of non-random text. But because the first 69 characters can be anything, we only need to calculate the probability of accidentally typing the second line identical to the first. To do this we need to multiply one by 27, 69 times:

1 x 27 = 27, 27 x 27 = 729, 729 x 27 = 19,683 … if we do that 69 times we again get an answer with a one followed by 99 zeros.

If therefore we had as many monkeys as there are atoms in the universe and all hit 2 keys a second since the big bang, then all we could expect them to come up with is 138 characters of non-random text. This of course is nothing like the complexity of our universe, nor does it equate to any complex system capable of supporting life anywhere, so it demonstrates the futility of any discussion on probability.

[b]Small probabilities happen all the time:[/b]

This is true and some will put this argument in support of the case that complex systems can come into existence without a cause. The argument goes something like this:

[i]It was indeed a small probability that all your ancestors met and had children and that eventually, you were born. But it happened. If it did not happen, you would not be here and this, it is argued, proves that even the smallest probabilities can happen.[/i]

This is like saying:

[i]Bill was not sure whether he should marry Jane or Sally so he flipped a coin. Heads he would marry Jane and tails it would be Sally. The coin landed with tails facing up so he married Sally. A year later Sally gave birth to their first child. Bill reasoned that the life and complexity contained within their healthy baby boy could be explained by the simple toss of a coin. For if the coin he flipped landed with heads facing up he would have married Jane and their baby would not exist.[/i]

The above argument is obviously nonsense for his coin flip only determined his choice of partner. The simple random process by which he chose his wife had no bearing on the complex process by which his son was conceived and eventually born. Yet there are other issues here; let us consider that our monkeys typed the following:

Example A

jdmleuncaxpieqzvnmjfmfaqip

lwvfdlojhytevcnkjmcdaqi 

The probability that they typed that particular sequence of 49 characters is, of course, small, but it happened. But instead of typing gibberish, imagine the following characters, in alphabetical order, now appeared:

Example B

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvw

No one should argue that small probabilities cannot happen. It is obvious that random events with small probabilities (Example A) happen all the time. The argument God Gametes is putting is only that significant amounts of non-random sequences (Example B) will not happen unless there is a cause.

The significance of random and non-random should be adequate to discredit the ‘very small probabilities happen all the time’ argument. For those still not convinced, however, there are other issues to ponder:

First is that the random characters in Example A are not reflective of the complexity we see everywhere, and such an exercise does not explain the abundance of complex design we see in life and our universe.

Second point relates to the gibberish in Example A being meaningless, while the order in Example B makes possible future predictions. Note that both examples have one line of 26 characters and one of 23. Now imagine our monkeys typed the remaining three characters on line two … it would then, of course, be impossible to predict what they would write in Example A, but because Example B has order, we can predict with near certainty that the next characters would be ‘xyz’.

Monkeys bashing typewriters does not answer our two questions … “Where did all those monkeys come from?” and “Where did they find the energy to type endlessly for 16 billion years?”

This treatise, however, is not about monkeys bashing typewriters; it is about the universe and the questions are: 

1) “Where did all the matter and all the heat in all those stars come from?”

2) “Where did life on earth and the complexity we see everywhere, come from?”

Today we know more about the universe than its immense size. We know it is governed by incredibly precise laws and also a little about the way it functions. But it is doubtful we know any more about its significance or its relationship to life on earth than did those people who first studied the orbits of planets and stars in ancient days.

[b]So where did life come from?[/b]

There is another important point we need to discuss:

Even if a random event could account for the existence of our universe, it would not explain life.

Darwinian natural selection did not create life.

Before life there was not competition for resources. When living creatures did not exist, there could not have been species variation, so there was no life to adapt to a dead planet. The machinery that Darwinists claim drove complexity did not exist before there was life!

We are told that life has been present on earth for 3,800 million years. 3,800 million years is an estimate but let’s imagine that it was exactly that from this very moment life began.

3,800 million years plus one second ago, then, earth was a dead planet.

Then the clock ticked and something wriggled … and planet earth had life?

Is that what Darwinists are asking us to believe?

What we surely believe is that something is either alive or dead because with life there is no half-way point.

That far back our planet was still cooling down and the primordial soup was bubbling away. There was no life. But later there was!

Something was non-life one second yet life the next!  

So what was it that got life started on the dead planet earth 3,800 million years ago?

It was either a creator or something that fell into place by accident.

Darwinists tell us there was no creator of life, so, according to their theory it must have been something that fell into place by accident.

Astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds of life coming into existence by chance. They estimated the number of enzymes needed for the simplest form of life, with each enzyme performing a specific function, and found the probability of everything coming together by accident was 1:10(40,000). That is 10 followed by 40,000 zeros. Suffice is to say that the probabilities here would make Neil Turok’s 1:10(120) look like a safe bet.

[b]Conclusion[/b]

The creation of life does more than defy probabilities. For more than the sixty years since James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, scientists all around the world have been trying to create life in the laboratory. They know the chemical elements from which life emerged and they know the genetic codes for building complexity so the accidental stitching up of correct gene sequences and the impossible probabilities, are not an issue here. Yet despite the time and resources dedicated to these experiments man has still not been able to create life in the laboratory.

Darwinists can argue that natural selection drives living creatures to change from one species into another. This has never been proven but to many observers it is held as a sound scientific case to put. However, when Darwinists say natural selection created life, or originated life, they are plainly wrong. Darwinists who argue this have clearly misunderstood their concept … as Darwin himself appears to have misunderstood his own theory. He called his book On the Origin of Species but natural selection is not about the ‘origin’ of anything.

His theory was not about the ‘origin’ of species, nor about the ‘origin’ of life.

Natural selection argues the case for how one ‘living’ species might gradually evolve into another ‘living’ species. It has nothing to do with how anything originated.

Darwinism cannot explain how the planets and stars originated or how the energy that holds them in place might have originated. And natural selection can certainly not explain how dead matter suddenly acquired the property of life and an ability to reproduce. Supporters of this concept foster the myth that with enough throws of the dice, with enough random coin flips, then blind probability can design complexity.

It cannot.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Jun-17 03:11 by Robert Jameson.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 4517 Bruce R. Fenton 01-Jun-17 11:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 1019 Susan Doris 02-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 802 Bruce R. Fenton 02-Jun-17 06:56
Related threads on GHMB 868 drrayeye 02-Jun-17 17:06
Re: Related threads on GHMB 703 Bruce R. Fenton 03-Jun-17 10:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 741 laughin 05-Jun-17 21:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 727 Bruce R. Fenton 06-Jun-17 04:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 729 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:28
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 618 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 04:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 928 Thanos5150 06-Jun-17 14:29
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 746 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 696 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:47
... 730 SallyA 08-Jun-17 04:00
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution ..-_-.. question one 644 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 04:37
... 737 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 624 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:15
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 757 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 19:38
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 724 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 03:20
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 607 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:33
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 919 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:08
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 662 SallyA 08-Jun-17 05:17
... 737 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 708 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution -- thank you 664 SallyA 09-Jun-17 03:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 816 Thanos5150 11-Jun-17 16:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 598 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:26
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 632 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 716 Thanos5150 09-Jun-17 23:54
OOA strikes back - the sequel 763 laughin 08-Jun-17 13:09
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 660 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 15:37
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 661 Thanos5150 08-Jun-17 17:23
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 643 Robert Jameson 11-Jun-17 06:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 643 Bruce R. Fenton 11-Jun-17 11:46
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 795 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 05:34
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 654 dong 12-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 718 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 13:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 724 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 621 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 12:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 690 Susan Doris 14-Jun-17 05:02
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 692 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 717 michael seabrook 13-Jun-17 22:09
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 724 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 00:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 624 SallyA 13-Jun-17 01:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 604 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 02:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb. .. Giza hosts an inland sea 790 SallyA 13-Jun-17 02:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 588 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 03:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 651 SallyA 13-Jun-17 04:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 708 Thanos5150 14-Jun-17 15:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 783 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 17:54
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 609 michael seabrook 16-Jun-17 21:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 628 Robert Jameson 16-Jun-17 22:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 698 SallyA 16-Jun-17 23:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 698 Robert Jameson 17-Jun-17 09:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 604 Susan Doris 17-Jun-17 14:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 667 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 02:43
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 621 Susan Doris 18-Jun-17 09:24
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 676 Bruce R. Fenton 18-Jun-17 11:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 677 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:14
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 587 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:04
Unfair diversion 518 drrayeye 18-Jun-17 21:35
Re: Proto-sumerian ... Ukraine ... a bit late for into Africa I fear, probably mis-posted 780 SallyA 19-Jun-17 03:00
Re: Unfair diversion 715 Susan Doris 19-Jun-17 05:20
Unfair diversion for sure 604 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 05:47
Re: Unfair diversion for sure 664 Susan Doris 20-Jun-17 04:56
Robert's challenge 705 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 07:24
Re: Robert's challenge 598 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 11:17
Tangential 592 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 05:03
Re: Tangential 603 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 06:12
Wrong board 622 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:38
Re: Wrong board 577 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 08:03
Re: Tangential 611 Eddie Larry 27-Jun-17 15:59
Re:Susan, do you know of a time line? 623 SallyA 19-Jun-17 17:48
Re: Unfair diversion 682 Thanos5150 19-Jun-17 13:44
Re: Unfair diversion 596 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 15:40
Re: Unfair diversion 710 Robert Jameson 19-Jun-17 23:14
Re: Unfair diversion 609 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 00:31
Re: Unfair diversion 677 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 10:19
kicking a dead horse 621 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 14:36
Re: kicking a dead horse 526 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 23:49
Staying on topic 606 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 01:15
Re: Unfair diversion 618 Thanos5150 20-Jun-17 15:24
Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 545 SallyA 20-Jun-17 15:59
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 514 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:21
Interesting 592 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:50
Re: Interesting 479 Bruce R. Fenton 27-Jun-17 22:32
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 484 Eddie Larry 28-Jun-17 04:37
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 828 Bruce R. Fenton 28-Jun-17 04:41
Re: Unfair diversion 562 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 15:59
Off Topic: re: factors which alter .. Earth's shields don't block cygnets ... nor neutrinos, ... 536 SallyA 20-Jun-17 21:13
Re: Unfair diversion 513 SallyA 21-Jun-17 01:37
Focus 612 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 07:30
Re: Focus 681 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:26
Re: Focus 586 Susan Doris 26-Jun-17 16:51
Re: Focus... ah, my bad ... 490 SallyA 11-Feb-18 19:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 681 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Jun-17 12:12
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 615 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 06:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 593 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 11:57
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 741 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 13:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 427 lalbee 16-Feb-18 13:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 411 lalbee 17-Feb-18 02:25
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 427 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 04:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 406 lalbee 17-Feb-18 05:56
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 431 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 06:27
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 565 lalbee 18-Feb-18 15:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 438 drrayeye 21-Feb-18 13:48
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 421 lalbee 22-Feb-18 16:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 418 Robert Jameson 22-Feb-18 19:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 798 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:07
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 430 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:00


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.