merely a matter of blind thrusting and throbbing

[ida pingala]

hanshan,

Thank you for your contribution.

What does c2w's post mean to you?

[hanshan]

...




...

[ida pingala]

Thank you, hanshan.

Would you explain that in a way that you think I might understand. Consider it an exercise.

[ida pingala]

hanshan,

Thanks for that.

A picture's worth a thousand words. A motion picture must be worth a 1,000,000 or more.

I especially like this entry...

http://biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans

Humans share more DNA with chimpanzees than with any other animal, suggesting that humans and chimps share a relatively recent common ancestor. Also, the same defective genes appear in both humans and chimps, at the same locations in the genome—an observation difficult to explain except by common ancestry. Genetics also tells us that the human population today descended from more than two people. Evolution happens not to individuals but to populations, and the amount of genetic diversity in the gene pool today suggests that the human population was never smaller than several thousand individuals. Yet all humans, of all races, are descended from this group. Humanity is one family.

[barracuda]

the human population was never smaller than several thousand individuals

So, a fairly large group made the jump from the most recent common ancestor all at once, and the probability of discovering the remains of one of those hominids is infinitesimal.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Someone or something altered the dna of man's immediate ancestors.

Kubrick's 2001 comes to mind.

...

[ida pingala]

Music of the spheres.

[barracuda]

[ida pingala]

^^Sure.

But this:

Charles Darwin was no Darwinist, leaving the evidence of cataclysmic upheaval he had observed on the Beagle--and all its implications--out of The Origin of Species.

(a) suggests that he not only omitted that for no good (or maybe just "no known, stated and credible") reason, but that he knowingly suppressed it for reasons so very bad that his having done so effectively scientifically invalidates Darwinism -- aka "the entire field of evolutionary biology, from start to finish" in this context -- and all its implications, for all practical and theoretical purposes; and

(b) does so exclusively by itself omitting to mention virtually everything that Charles Darwin ever did (and/or didn't do) in the whole of his life's work, apart from leave those words out of The Origin of Species.
___________________

I think there might be some context you're not fully taking into account there, basically.

I'm sorry that no one else asked you to elaborate on the context of which you speak. Please do. I hope that I have enough time to follow through. Knock on wood.