Quote:

The presumption here is that an evolutionary line maintains a constant existential geneology over the duration of that timeline and as far as the interpretation of our history goes from every conceivable science looking into the matter, this is simply not possible at all.



It is possible, this is exactly what has happened with many species. Don't forget that not well-adapted forms of species did go extinct throughout history and remember that some species 'come and go' in a relative short timespan for which there can be many reasons. Just because 'our' species has never gone extinct doesn't mean it's 'invincible' either.

Quote:

at a more immediate timeline spanning perhaps 120 to 250k years as would seem to be the most likely period to look at given the limited genetic diversity we currently have, can we honestly 'assume' that we are the result of an unbroken genetic mutable line spanning this impossible 3 Billion year duration?



No, definitely not. We're looking at a timespan exceeding way 3 million years, the Hominoidea 'family' started about 7 million years ago with Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Infact, the 'primate' evolution has an approx. timespan of around 60 million years and (we) are part of one of the longest surviving mammal-groups.

About 5 million years ago there was a clear separation between 'human-like species' and 'apes' (when using the 'molecular clock'). But when looking at the current-day similarities between us and apes, it's pretty clear the biggest part of the evolutionary process has probably taken place before 5 million years ago, all that came after is still very very important off course though, but basic things like eyes, ears, brain etc. already became close to what they are now.

There's actually a big genetic diversity amongst the modern human race by the way, there are all kinds of different humans. You've also got to realize how 'diversity' works. For some kinds of species diversity is a extra weapon to survive as a species. More individuals and a higher diversity usually means a species is more likely to survive, because it's more flexible to drastic changes (chances are higher that because of the high diversity there are already species who can survive those drastic changes.)

Not all species 'need' this per say to survive. When I say need, I mean there were no selective factors which demanded such things in order to be able to survive as a species. On the other hand there have been important events in our evolutionary history in which a certain degree of 'diversity' has played a major role for us to be able to survive. When it comes to mammals, remember that dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor impact eventhough many mammal species survived...

Quote:

In short, its a wild guessing game on many fronts.



What exactly are the 'wild guesses' involved then 'on many fronts'? Most if not everything is based on pure evidence, the fossilrecord, DNA studies, morphological studies and what more all quite clearly support evolution and vice-versa.

Quote:

As pointed out previously, the structure and composition of our genes intergrate amazingly well to produce life as we know it but how could this have possibly been the result of random selection? Its as though a programmer wrote the genetic code! It is so complex and co-dependant as to seem 'Designed'.



Natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the mechanisms of evolution, are not random at all. Apart from that there are a lot of things on this planet that 'look to be designed to us', but we are biased. There have been people in the past that said to have found 'old stone man-made figurines'. Fact was those particular stones simply got carried by a river downstream, polishing them and shaping them into something we, with our bias, consider to be humanoid figure shapes, eventhough these stones were simply shaped into their form by collisions with other rocks inside the river.

Complexity says absolutely nothing by the way. Something primitive can evolve into something complex. It's a long way from 'one cell' to 'human' perhaps (and it definitely took a long long time), but there's no logical reason nor evidence against it to assume it has not happened. Infact, it's legit to consider our direct ancestors, the apes, to be 'more primitive' than we are.

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software