I don't agree with Robert or Bruce (or Graham for that matter) on the best interpretation of recent archeological, dna, and other evidence supporting various newly modified theories of human evolution--but that's where we are right now.
We disagree--and there are good reasons for almost anyone to disagree about something.
Not that I know.
These are interesting times. As we gather more information, we're being forced to rethink.
Here's your response to Robert:
Robert: The fossil record can only point to what happened – we need to speculate on what might have been driving it.
Susan: 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.
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.
Robert made a very long and involved answer that was very responsive to your comments--requiring you to have a more detailed understanding of evolutionary theory than the simplified Darwinian view you had been presenting--justifying the need to speculate.
Your response was to accuse him of hijacking the thread and--without directly and substantially responding to his elaborate comments--dismissively said:
Speculate is all we can do …
is so far from anything factual that my response can only be deep sighs at the credulity of anyone who accepts your ideas.
I do hope that you are not in a position to teach children this stuff as truth.
If you ask questions about scientific concepts, respond to Robert's explanation. A lot of his approach involves making interesting calculations and comparisons: you make it sound like "crazy talk."
Why not a substantive response to Robert? He did a lot of hard work responding to you.