Evolution And Bricks

[katherine the great]

We've worked very hard at this, and have finally done it. We've created a new species of animal;

Humanus Ludditicus Americanii. Common name is Dumbicans.

. No kidding. (Ugh!)

[cdowis]

I have to disagree with you on this.

 

I don't see how anyone can disagree with my irrefutable logic, but let's see what you got.

 

 Of course his explanation has to be somewhat simplistic because he is summarizing a time period of millions of years.  I think he does an excellent job of connecting the dots in a concise manner.

 

I will be careful on how I put this.  I am equally impressed how holocaust denier are able to "connect the dots", if you are willing to accept their assumptions and ignore alternative explanations.

 

 We can infer quite a bit about a population by looking at the tools that they used, their burial customs (or absence of), the way they processed their foods, their use (or lack of) fire.

 

Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology?  Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. **

 

 We look at the bones to see if we can find evidence of healing of severe wounds or loss of many teeth that point towards a population that took care of their disadvantaged members, etc.

 

Okey dokey, aAnd what conclusion do we come to when we fail to find such evidence?

 

 The inference from engravings that these people were capable of symbolic thought, thus speech is a logical one

 

Of course.  And I am confident that all of the descendants of Adam had the ability of intelligent speech, beyond making the cartoonist grunts.

 

.  The only physical evidence of speech capacity is the hyoid bone, and it's such a fragile bone that it is rarely preserved.  We know some Neanderthals had it and I believe a partial one was found in an erectus, but neither one was exactly the same as in modern humans and cast doubt as to whether they could speak like we do--their behavior doesn't seem to support it (maybe some Neanderthals.)

 

If you are an evolutionist, it is probable that you will not assume intelligent speech, only grunts.  "What could they possibly say that required a sophisticated language?

 

As to archaeologists being surprised by ancient technology, that is true, but really only as it pertains to modern humans--not to protohumans and thus not to evolution in general.

 

OK, so if you are including protohumans and their use of tools, then you need to include birds, rats and other animals as well, who use tools, show evidence of problem solving and compassion.  But the evolutionist would assume that this is evidence of evolution, whilst I see it as evidence of a carefully orchestrated design, not only of humans but all animals.

 

 The only exception I can think of is that there is some evidence of Oldowan tool use among some late Australopithecines who could not be considered human by any standard but are thought to be forerunners of the first members of the genus homo (the far right skulls).

 

So you have totally demolished my argument?

Edited April 20, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Tiki,

 

They are not evolving, just getting fatter.  But I guess that depends on your assumptions and how you "connect the dots".

[thesometimesaint]

 

I have to disagree with you on this.

 

I don't see how anyone can disagree with my irrefutable logic, but let's see what you got.

 

 Of course his explanation has to be somewhat simplistic because he is summarizing a time period of millions of years.  I think he does an excellent job of connecting the dots in a concise manner.

 

I will be careful on how I put this.  I am equally impressed how holocaust denier are able to "connect the dots", if you are willing to accept their assumptions and ignore alternative explanations.

 

 We can infer quite a bit about a population by looking at the tools that they used, their burial customs (or absence of), the way they processed their foods, their use (or lack of) fire.

 

Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology?  Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. **

 

 We look at the bones to see if we can find evidence of healing of severe wounds or loss of many teeth that point towards a population that took care of their disadvantaged members, etc.

 

Okey dokey, aAnd what conclusion do we come to when we fail to find such evidence?

 

 The inference from engravings that these people were capable of symbolic thought, thus speech is a logical one

 

Of course.  And I am confident that all of the descendants of Adam had the ability of intelligent speech, beyond making the cartoonist grunts.

 

.  The only physical evidence of speech capacity is the hyoid bone, and it's such a fragile bone that it is rarely preserved.  We know some Neanderthals had it and I believe a partial one was found in an erectus, but neither one was exactly the same as in modern humans and cast doubt as to whether they could speak like we do--their behavior doesn't seem to support it (maybe some Neanderthals.)

 

If you are an evolutionist, it is probable that you will not assume intelligent speech, only grunts.  "What could they possibly say that required a sophisticated language?

 

As to archaeologists being surprised by ancient technology, that is true, but really only as it pertains to modern humans--not to protohumans and thus not to evolution in general.

 

OK, so if you are including protohumans and their use of tools, then you need to include birds, rats and other animals as well, who use tools, show evidence of problem solving and compassion.  But the evolutionist would assume that this is evidence of evolution, whilst I see it as evidence of a carefully orchestrated design, not only of humans but all animals.

 

 The only exception I can think of is that there is some evidence of Oldowan tool use among some late Australopithecines who could not be considered human by any standard but are thought to be forerunners of the first members of the genus homo (the far right skulls).

 

So you have totally demolished my argument?

 

 

Reductio ad absurdum

[katherine the great]

I have to disagree with you on this.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with my irrefutable logic, but let's see what you got.

Of course his explanation has to be somewhat simplistic because he is summarizing a time period of millions of years. I think he does an excellent job of connecting the dots in a concise manner.

I will be careful on how I put this. I am equally impressed how holocaust denier are able to "connect the dots", if you are willing to accept their assumptions and ignore alternative explanations.

We can infer quite a bit about a population by looking at the tools that they used, their burial customs (or absence of), the way they processed their foods, their use (or lack of) fire.

Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology? Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. **

We look at the bones to see if we can find evidence of healing of severe wounds or loss of many teeth that point towards a population that took care of their disadvantaged members, etc.

Okey dokey, aAnd what conclusion do we come to when we fail to find such evidence?

The inference from engravings that these people were capable of symbolic thought, thus speech is a logical one

Of course. And I am confident that all of the descendants of Adam had the ability of intelligent speech, beyond making the cartoonist grunts.

. The only physical evidence of speech capacity is the hyoid bone, and it's such a fragile bone that it is rarely preserved. We know some Neanderthals had it and I believe a partial one was found in an erectus, but neither one was exactly the same as in modern humans and cast doubt as to whether they could speak like we do--their behavior doesn't seem to support it (maybe some Neanderthals.)

If you are an evolutionist, it is probable that you will not assume intelligent speech, only grunts. "What could they possibly say that required a sophisticated language?

As to archaeologists being surprised by ancient technology, that is true, but really only as it pertains to modern humans--not to protohumans and thus not to evolution in general.

OK, so if you are including protohumans and their use of tools, then you need to include birds, rats and other animals as well, who use tools, show evidence of problem solving and compassion. But the evolutionist would assume that this is evidence of evolution, whilst I see it as evidence of a carefully orchestrated design, not only of humans but all animals.

The only exception I can think of is that there is some evidence of Oldowan tool use among some late Australopithecines who could not be considered human by any standard but are thought to be forerunners of the first members of the genus homo (the far right skulls).

So you have totally demolished my argument?

. What would be your scientific explanation of the evidence he presented? Edited April 21, 2014 by katherine the great

[Calm]

"Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology?  Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. "

And it would likely be a safe assumption if there was no trace of a higher technology found (such as larger healthier groups, the tech itself, the artifacts made with the tech, etc.

[cdowis]

"Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology?  Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. "

And it would likely be a safe assumption if there was no trace of a higher technology found (such as larger healthier groups, the tech itself, the artifacts made with the tech, etc.

 

I think you have a very naive view of prehistory archaeology.  

 

There are two issues here.

 

1. Archaeological discoveries are heuristic.  For example, the Ice Man discovery==>>

 

 

 

But the Iceman with his copper axe was 5,000 years old—proof that the transition from the Neolithic to the Copper Age happened much earlier than previously thought.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2518iceman.html

 

In this case it was such a happenstance discovery that we then had to revise our understanding the history of technology.  Our knowledge is based on relatively few samples that have been discovered and can dramatically change with a new discovery.

 

2. But it gets worse.

 

Are you claiming that the dating of stone tools is based on certitude, within a few decades or even centuries?  Or is it based on "reasonable speculation".

 

 The evolutionists use their assumption, or "reasonable speculation", when comparing two stone tools that a primitive tool will predate the more developed tool.  What if you were to actually ask our friend them whether it were possible that the dating should be reversed, the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one.  

 

Ask them to prove the relative dating of the two tools.  Is it not possible that the dates could overlap, that the dating has a broad range of uncertainty?

 

Contact our friend in the video, ask him about the issues that I have raised and get back to us with his response.

Edited April 21, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I think you have a very naive view of prehistory archaeology.  

 

There are two issues here.

 

1. Archaeological discoveries are heuristic.  For example, the Ice Man discovery==>>

 

 

In this case it was such a happenstance discovery that we then had to revise our understanding the history of technology.  Our knowledge is based on relatively few samples that have been discovered and can dramatically change with a new discovery.

 

2. But it gets worse.

 

Are you claiming that the dating of stone tools is based on certitude, within a few decades or even centuries?  Or is it based on "reasonable speculation".

 

 The evolutionists use their assumption, or "reasonable speculation", when comparing two stone tools that a primitive tool will predate the more developed tool.  What if you were to actually ask our friend them whether it were possible that the dating should be reversed, the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one.  

 

Ask them to prove the relative dating of the two tools.  Is it not possible that the dates could overlap, that the dating has a broad range of uncertainty?

 

Contact our friend in the video, ask him about the issues that I have raised and get back to us with his response.

 

Then it should be very easy for anti-evolutionists to disprove the theory. If you want to do that just dig up a modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed Precambrian layer of dirt.

[katherine the great]

Charles, you may be the one who is naive about archaeology (and yes, I am an archaeologist--in fact I am sitting in my lab right now.)  Sites are partially dated yes by artifact type, and building upon prevailing theory only, they can be misdated.  Most typically, a preliminary date may be given to a site because of artifact type while awaiting analysis of other data that can give us an absolute date.  However, we use all the data we can find to give as close to an accurate date as possible.  We send things out for all kinds of testing: radiocarbon, isotope analysis, DNA (if we are really lucky).  We try to find the source of materials, look at surrounding sites and gather data from them for context, etc.  When further information becomes available, we update our reports.  As to Oetzi, that is a discrepancy of a few hundred years.  With Oldowan tools, the time span is over a million years.  A million years with none to very little change in technology and absolutely no environmental evidence of them needing more intricate use of tools.  Then there appeared Acheulean tools--also with a very long history.  Neanderthals had mousterian and so forth. Later changes in technology seem to coincide with increase in brain size and evidence of more complex behaviors.

Edited April 21, 2014 by katherine the great

[bcuzbcuz]

I think you have a very naive view of prehistory archaeology.  

 

There are two issues here.

 

1. Archaeological discoveries are heuristic.  For example, the Ice Man discovery==>>

 

 

In this case it was such a happenstance discovery that we then had to revise our understanding the history of technology.  Our knowledge is based on relatively few samples that have been discovered and can dramatically change with a new discovery.

 

2. But it gets worse.

 

Are you claiming that the dating of stone tools is based on certitude, within a few decades or even centuries?  Or is it based on "reasonable speculation".

 

 The evolutionists use their assumption, or "reasonable speculation", when comparing two stone tools that a primitive tool will predate the more developed tool.  What if you were to actually ask our friend them whether it were possible that the dating should be reversed, the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one.  

 

Ask them to prove the relative dating of the two tools.  Is it not possible that the dates could overlap, that the dating has a broad range of uncertainty?

 

Contact our friend in the video, ask him about the issues that I have raised and get back to us with his response.

You seem to be under the impression that the dating of stone tools, or bones for that matter, are based on studying one or two objects. The number of stone tools from ancient Egypt, for example, number in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. There are areas you can visit that you find them within spitting distance, in any direction.

You need some experience on an actual dig, or how about visiting your local museum and talking to someone knowledgable. If you happen to live where there is a museum with an Egyptian or Mesopotamian exhibit, or a university that has any ancient history or archaeology department, you will become better informed.

 

As to your "red herring" about "the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one", all you need to do is look in your own toolbox at home. You probably still have a few slot head screwdrivers amongst your tools. Even though they are being quickly replaced by Phillips, pozidriv, Roberts, hex, torn, tri-wings, torq-sets, double squares, polidrives, one-ways, double hex,or Bristols. Take your pick. I have power saws, but sometimes I just go back to an old handsaw because I feel like it. Ancient man had the same prerogatives.

[Rob Osborn]

And yet massive stone rocks drilled and cut to exacting precision in ancient times in Peru baffles all of science....

[bcuzbcuz]

And yet massive stone rocks drilled and cut to exacting precision in ancient times in Peru baffles all of science....

Have you been to Machu Picchu? My youngest daughter and my wife's daughter have both been there. It wasn't that baffling to Hiram Bingham either, when he wrote about it in National Geographics in 1913. There are no "magically" cut stones there, just very skilled stone masons, rather, stone artisans, skilled in a form of stone cutting, called "ashlar". Read up on it. 

 

Machu Picchu was built by skilled human hands, somewhere around the time of the great Incas Pachacutec and Tupac (no, not that Tupac) around 1450 AD, then abandoned in 1572. The real marvel of the place is not the stone masonry, but the water drainage systems that have kept the rock structures from sliding down the mountain.

 

Or you can read about the Quechua people's potato cultures, both at Machu Picchu and  throughout the Andes, (although my wife insists the potato comes from her homeland, Chilé) that developed over 5000 varieties of potatoes. That's a marvel that rivals your "science baffling" stone cutters.

[Rob Osborn]

Have you been to Machu Picchu? My youngest daughter and my wife's daughter have both been there. It wasn't that baffling to Hiram Bingham either, when he wrote about it in National Geographics in 1913. There are no "magically" cut stones there, just very skilled stone masons, rather, stone artisans, skilled in a form of stone cutting, called "ashlar". Read up on it.

Machu Picchu was built by skilled human hands, somewhere around the time of the great Incas Pachacutec and Tupac (no, not that Tupac) around 1450 AD, then abandoned in 1572. The real marvel of the place is not the stone masonry, but the water drainage systems that have kept the rock structures from sliding down the mountain.

Or you can read about the Quechua people's potato cultures, both at Machu Picchu and throughout the Andes, (although my wife insists the potato comes from her homeland, Chilé) that developed over 5000 varieties of potatoes. That's a marvel that rivals your "science baffling" stone cutters.

Google "Puma punku machine cut stone" Edited April 21, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[cdowis]

You seem to be under the impression that the dating of stone tools, or bones for that matter, are based on studying one or two objects.

 

It seems that you have taken lessons in mind reading, so I really need to pay attention to what you have to say.

 

 

The number of stone tools from ancient Egypt, for example, number in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. There are areas you can visit that you find them within spitting distance, in any direction.

 

I am not particularly impressed by sophistry and rhetorical fireworks.

 

You need some experience on an actual dig, or how about visiting your local museum and talking to someone knowledgable. If you happen to live where there is a museum with an Egyptian or Mesopotamian exhibit, or a university that has any ancient history or archaeology department, you will become better informed.

 

Yes, I really need to have more experience so that I can truly understand your argument.  Museums are a good place for me to start, eh?

 

Actually I need to take a few classes in rhetoric, debate and philosophy which are very  relevant to sophistry.

 

As to your "red herring" about "the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one", all you need to do is look in your own toolbox at home.

 

Wow, look in my toolbox.  Look at the Egyptians and their tools.  Who would have thought?!

 

Impressive!  A mind reader and a genius.

Edited April 21, 2014 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

Google "Puma punku machine cut stone"

You're telling me, and everyone else who reads your posts that these stones were cut by.........wait for it...........ALieNs????

 

references please.

 

I'll ask my wife's daughter and her fiancé, who just returned from Bolivia, his home country, what Bolivians think of those hyped up sites that claim marvels from strange planets.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

You seem to be under the impression that the dating of stone tools, or bones for that matter, are based on studying one or two objects.

 

It seems that you have taken lessons in mind reading, so I really need to pay attention to what you have to say.

 

 

The number of stone tools from ancient Egypt, for example, number in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. There are areas you can visit that you find them within spitting distance, in any direction.

 

I am not particularly impressed by sophistry and rhetorical fireworks.

 

You need some experience on an actual dig, or how about visiting your local museum and talking to someone knowledgable. If you happen to live where there is a museum with an Egyptian or Mesopotamian exhibit, or a university that has any ancient history or archaeology department, you will become better informed.

 

Yes, I really need to have more experience so that I can truly understand your argument.  Museums are a good place for me to start, eh?

 

Actually I need to take a few classes in rhetoric, debate and philosophy which are very  relevant to sophistry.

 

As to your "red herring" about "the primitive tool could actually postdate the sophisticated one", all you need to do is look in your own toolbox at home.

 

Wow, look in my toolbox.  Look at the Egyptians and their tools.  Who would have thought?!

 

Impressive!  A mind reader and a genius.

 

You win.

[cdowis]

Charles, you may be the one who is naive about archaeology (and yes, I am an archaeologist--in fact I am sitting in my lab right now.)

 

OK, let's see what you have to tell us.

 

 Sites are partially dated yes by artifact type, and building upon prevailing theory only, they can be misdated.  Most typically, a preliminary date may be given to a site because of artifact type while awaiting analysis of other data that can give us an absolute date.  However, we use all the data we can find to give as close to an accurate date as possible.

 

And what exactly is your point?  Can we agree that the uncertainty of dating can cause us to be very mistaken about the relative dating of two sites, decades or even centuries.  I was not talking about absolute dating but relative dating, if you carefully read my post,

 

 We send things out for all kinds of testing: radiocarbon, isotope analysis, DNA (if we are really lucky).  We try to find the source of materials, look at surrounding sites and gather data from them for context, etc.  When further information becomes available, we update our reports.

 

Where exactly are you taking us?

 

 As to Oetzi, that is a discrepancy of a few hundred years.  With Oldowan tools, the time span is over a million years.  A million years with none to very little change in technology and absolutely no environmental evidence of them needing more intricate use of tools.

 

I see that you ignored my mentioning of Heuristic discoveries.  You can only stumble across significant finds.

 

 Then there appeared Acheulean tools--also with a very long history.  Neanderthals had mousterian and so forth. Later changes in technology seem to coincide with increase in brain size and evidence of more complex behaviors.

 

Yes, that is the conclusion of evolutionists, in case you missed that in my post.  Perhaps you have considered the following, as an archaeologist:

 

1. Tools design is created by an particular individual, and the creative genius of that individual has more to do with the design that raw intelligence.  Perhaps a few classes in psychology will show you that individuals with low intelligence can and do have a high degree of such creativity.

 

2. Tools are part of a particular culture.  If it works and is functional, why change it?  It can be persistent within that culture.

 

Somebody has to decide that there is a NEED to make improvements, not based on the evolved size of their skull or other such nonsense.  Within a particular culture there may be a genius arise who has the unique ability to change and improve the design of tools.   Bach, Mozart, Einstein were not evidence of evolution but of the unique abilities of individuals.

 

For centuries man accepted the theory of the geocentric universe.  Is the advance of our understanding of the universe evidence of evolution?  Is the dramatic advance of tool making technology a result of the evolutionary increase of man's brain pan?  Or the result of individuals with unique abilities, having nothing to do with evolution per se.

 

So please explain to me, as an archaeologist,  how the development of tools is evidence of evolution.  Please help me understand.

Edited April 21, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

You win.

 

Give me a serious argument and I will respond accordingly.

Edited April 21, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Cdowis:

 

1. There are good reasons for how Chimps don't build Saturn 5 missiles. Intelligence is the main one. Without the corresponding brain cavity it is impossible to stuff the requisite human brains inside a Chimps skull. The best they can do is simple rudimentary tools.

 

2. Horse powered chariots work and serve valuable functions. Why did we invent automobiles? Why do ball players need wear helmets fitted to their skull size?

Bach, Mozart, Einstein were very much evidence of evolution.

[ERayR]

"Are you aware that a culture can lose a higher technology and have it replaced by a lower technology?  Thus, if we find this lower technology (primitive tools) then we ASSUME that were no higher technology available to them in previous decades, leading, of course, to a false conclusion. "

And it would likely be a safe assumption if there was no trace of a higher technology found (such as larger healthier groups, the tech itself, the artifacts made with the tech, etc.

 

Cal if one spends a little time searching you can find evidence of higher technology in the distant past.

 

Cdowis:

 

1. There are good reasons for how Chimps don't build Saturn 5 missiles. Intelligence is the main one. Without the corresponding brain cavity it is impossible to stuff the requisite human brains inside a Chimps skull. The best they can do is simple rudimentary tools.

 

2. Horse powered chariots work and serve valuable functions. Why did we invent automobiles? Why do ball players need wear helmets fitted to their skull size?

Bach, Mozart, Einstein were very much evidence of evolution.

 

Its not a slam dunk and not all the scientific community agree.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter/

[ERayR]

You're telling me, and everyone else who reads your posts that these stones were cut by.........wait for it...........ALieNs????

 

references please.

 

I'll ask my wife's daughter and her fiancé, who just returned from Bolivia, his home country, what Bolivians think of those hyped up sites that claim marvels from strange planets.

 

Wow! man on the street interviews.  I just love them.  They are always good for a grin.

[ERayR]

Have you been to Machu Picchu? My youngest daughter and my wife's daughter have both been there. It wasn't that baffling to Hiram Bingham either, when he wrote about it in National Geographics in 1913. There are no "magically" cut stones there, just very skilled stone masons, rather, stone artisans, skilled in a form of stone cutting, called "ashlar". Read up on it. 

 

Machu Picchu was built by skilled human hands, somewhere around the time of the great Incas Pachacutec and Tupac (no, not that Tupac) around 1450 AD, then abandoned in 1572. The real marvel of the place is not the stone masonry, but the water drainage systems that have kept the rock structures from sliding down the mountain.

 

Or you can read about the Quechua people's potato cultures, both at Machu Picchu and  throughout the Andes, (although my wife insists the potato comes from her homeland, Chilé) that developed over 5000 varieties of potatoes. That's a marvel that rivals your "science baffling" stone cutters.

 

Post the construction videos and pictures.  Nothing like a good period photo to clarify everything.

[ERayR]

Charles, you may be the one who is naive about archaeology (and yes, I am an archaeologist--in fact I am sitting in my lab right now.)  Sites are partially dated yes by artifact type, and building upon prevailing theory only, they can be misdated.  Most typically, a preliminary date may be given to a site because of artifact type while awaiting analysis of other data that can give us an absolute date.  However, we use all the data we can find to give as close to an accurate date as possible.  We send things out for all kinds of testing: radiocarbon, isotope analysis, DNA (if we are really lucky).  We try to find the source of materials, look at surrounding sites and gather data from them for context, etc.  When further information becomes available, we update our reports.  As to Oetzi, that is a discrepancy of a few hundred years.  With Oldowan tools, the time span is over a million years.  A million years with none to very little change in technology and absolutely no environmental evidence of them needing more intricate use of tools.  Then there appeared Acheulean tools--also with a very long history.  Neanderthals had mousterian and so forth. Later changes in technology seem to coincide with increase in brain size and evidence of more complex behaviors.

 

There is a lot of puzzling artifacts lying around out there that rather than finding a plausible explanation macro-evolutionists either dismiss or ridicule.  Here is just a few.  Please give a serious explanation for them.

 

http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=75

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/esp_electricidad_egipto_1.htm

[ERayR]

I wouldn't call him the pinnacle of evolution more like regression towards the mean like Lucrezia Borgia. Evolution doesn't address God.

 

Oh come now this level must surely be quite high on the evolutionary scale.

[Calm]

"Cal if one spends a little time searching you can find evidence of higher technology in the distant past."

If you read what I stated again, you will see I am arguing for there being evidence of higher technology left around when there has been higher technology present, not for the complete absence of such.