"Donal" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
Why do you say that? Do you only work on problems where the solution is
trivial? I suppose that might be the case: you triviallized all of
evolution
by simply saying, "I thought about it, and it doesn't work."

Quite the opposite.

No, that's exactly what you're saying. Or are you claiming that you're a
biologist qualified to critique the work of thousands of your colleagues.


I've actually thought about it ... and the evolutionary theory doesn't add
up.

If you assume an average 13 years between generations, then you cannot
produce Homo Sapiens in the available time.

First of all, most mammals come to maturity in a year or less. Smaller mammals
are often even faster, and more primitive lifeforms may have many generations in
a year. You may have an argument that several hundred thousands generations
seems short for our development from "Lucy" (I would still differ), but the
lower lifeforms have had billions of generations. When you consider what we've
done with dogs in just a few hundred generations or so, I can easily believe
that there's been plenty of time for us to have been created by evolution.


Try it yourself!


OK, another set of examples. All of the plant and animal species that we now
called "domesticated" are quite different from their wild predecessors. All of
these new species "evolved," largely as an accident of interaction with human
culture, in a time span of less then 10,000 years. Actually, many occurred in
less than 1000 years - Wheat for instance (IIRC) evolved quickly because several
naturally occurring mutations were very compatible with human cultivation.