MM

I think the question could be reversed. When will religion be accepted by science. My personal opinion is that a belief in god or a higher entity is an evolved phenomena (not a social one) acting primarily as a psychological defense mechanism. Studies have shown that there are advantages from believing in god and I would like to se more that could possible confirm its imprint in our genes.

Ok, I misunderstood you about the feet comparison. Although I see them adapted mostly for walking and I belive walking upright is an energy conservation issue. Here's some recent news on upright stance. ape-like people http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm I don't have that channel so I will have to wait. What I think is certain is that as we evolved we were able to live further and further away from water and by the way I think we evolved through a diversity of surroundings I will grant you it's not farfetched to think that some of our traits came from a water environment. It is however hard to pinpoint the exact traits because the reasons for some of the traits would come from multiple factors all working together. All and all I belive we evolved from a predominant land creature.

It was an analogy for random events. It's pretty common to get a grasp of the possibility of something happening. However I do disagree with the conclusion cause I belive evolutionary theory is just in its infancy.

The sample space were pretty big anyway. http://www.leaderu.com/issues/fabric/chap05.html "What did these men (both atheists) discover? They concluded that the chances of a living cell coming into existence spontaneously anywhere in the cosmos would take 10 to the 40,000th power years. Anything with less probability (which means a higher number) than 10 to the 50th power is never going to happen in the entire universe, we are told by probability experts. "The chances," he said, "of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, and creating a 747 are vastly greater." "

What I found interesting was the speed, a day or two which leads me to the hypothesis that the specific surroundings encloses possible random mutations to hotspots. If so and if the hotspots are beneficial in this case then a big part of evolutionary theory is missing.

Yes I think you have to scrutinize the theory for it to evolve. The way I see it bringing creationism to it will just speed up the process.

As a first try I would see if loss of hair consists with conservation and gaining of energy of the whole system. I don't know if this is true or not but a friend of mine told me yesterday about a documentary he saw where bushman as he called them hunted for pray using only primitive tools like spears. Now the interesting part was the way the hunted down the animal. I first thought they sneaked up on the animal but he said they chased the creature for hours in terrible heat so at the end the animal would just stand still. Here I assume it was because of heat exhaustion. This hunting method clearly needs rapid cooling so less hair is preferable.

Just a thought on the randomness of mutations. How does central limit theorem apply to evolution in particular to the probability density for random mutations?

I doubt it would look the same. I just would like to know if the brain uses randomly generated impulses and how those were generated.

My purpose is to find out if the human brain depends upon random activities and if so to what extent.

Being the most advanced brain, yes.

Ok, can you provide some reference that discusses this that don't involve freewill.

Has the brain developed a random generator ?

Also since it is a repeating process the number of tries would end up in a process where which the superior trait would emerge quite rapidly in that specific time period together with a insignificant degree of fitness reduction. As to say the overall success of breeding and living would be higher than those without the trait.

"On top of this, even if it *was*, many damaging mutations could be hiding in recessive form (and since selection acts only of phenotype, they could not be totally weeded out). These hidden deleterious traits would be exposed via inbreeding and increased in frequency. This would *damage* the otherwise strong population." First of all I'm talking about a degree of inbreeding which would occur in a "small" population not necessarily meaning very close relatives and not to the extent they become semi clones. As the mechanism of inbreeding would mean breeding of in this case animals of close genetic makeup and I'm not refuting the side affects of long term inbreeding. Since obtaining energy is one of the primely important tasks for breeding and living, evolution result would abide by the rules of energy conservation. Dying of genetic "disorder" is then selective and breeding would then also be selective in the case of inbreeding. An event where which energy becomes scarce to find in a particular area would then be very selective since the animals would compete over the same energy resources and at the same time the total population would decline making the chances for inbreeding higher. Since we are dealing with two individuals the chances are not low of some degree of inbreeding since both parties want offspring and the genetically important trait that is proven to gather more energy in that specific environment be of similar kind. Tough bad traits would emerge the important thing is that good traits are strengthened and in my scenario there will be outcrossing, hybridization and together with natural selection and as good traits are spread to the non inbreeding population more and more animals would be able to survive in the new environment and consequently come and live there. I do think new species are anomalies based on random events but confined to rules of evolution.