Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

Not at all. The same would apply to any ancient peoples who do not exhibit the known ratios of time factored population and mental prowess: if any peoples are 60K years old - they would have most probably made it to the moon and back - 54,000 years ago ...

... and their population would be some 100 trillion - even after factoring in all relevent issues such as deaths and deseases.

But I'm not trying to be too smart or dogmatic - we have to remember at all times that darwin's evolution - or the origins of humans - are unknown and not resolved even by *THEORIES*.

It is not an anomoly to have a variant view based on science and logic.

Re the calculations relating to human population and mental prowess ratios, guess what - I got this from a desolate, barren, dry and fully documented and evidenced region of this planet: its called the Middle-east!

Exactly. But it happens to be the scenario in the middle-east, but only between 5000 to 6000 years ago - but w/o dispute!

You mean, other peoples in the earliest recordings of and by mankind never had this problem? Now that's more funny.

The banging of rocks and eating were items posited by yourself as pertaining to ancient humans. Now if the world pops and its mental prowess are known and observed - applicable over the last 6000 years from verifiable sources such as writings, nations, wars, kings, names and dates - then I put it to you that early mankind would have confronted these issues in the M/E - yet they manages to evolve from that point to now without resorting to 60,000 years: how do you account for it?I nominated 54,000 because we know for a fact that from ancient, non-writting ancient peoples in the M/E upto now, and all the current world population and mental developments took 6000 years, so I subtract that figure from the alledged 60,000 given for aboriginal history. Unless they never emulated the known ratios of population and mental prowess of the known?

This is common with all humanity - whether 6000 or 60,000. How does it apply?

I did. Evidenced humanity's history says this took 6000 years to achieve.

Are you saying someone is monitoring this situation - that 54,000 years ago, the population looked like it was going to overwhelm this planet - and this process was averted? And does this also satisfy the issue of mental prowess? Does'nt make sense!

A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.

Been there, seen it, had it. The problem with these sites is they assume a Talibanic, religious attitude: they never address the inconsistancies of their premies, as if they are not 'theories' but fact; and they consider no alternatives. Check it out again - you will find no mention of a direct seed linkage ...

I used a made up descriptive term to express a point ...

heiroglifics

One has to make up descriptive statements. What's so wrong in expressing a seed as internally derived - differentiating it from externally impacting evolution as per darwin?

Here's another one I made up: WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY MADE-UP STATEMENT - IS A SEED NOT AN INTERNALLY DERIVED FACTOR?

There is not a shred of evidence to back this up, of speech being gradually developed and evolving. There are no grads of 40K, 30K, 20K and 10K years! All of what we associate with speech endowed human developments and its history are only seen in the last 6000.

What is evolution? To me, its one of the processes we see - no different from rain and gravity. So its fine to give this process a name, as representing 'changes' in life forms; its an academic, virtual reference, with no actual position existing. I mean we cannot capture a thing called evolution or its source, same as we cannot capture the equation or source of gravity in a lab. The issue of evolution becomes precarious when we consider that all systems in the universe are 'intergrated'; here we have to give evolution a place in a larger system.As a process, I see more credibility in the host 'seed' than anything else being responsible for reproduction and all graduations, and that this needs no cross-species factor impacting for its viability. The issue of cross-species enters the picture in the quest to track the source and thread of life, from an evidential scientific methodology. However, there is also another factor which propells this quest: science and anything appearing in a theology become mutually exclusive, and sometimes this can lead to an agenda-based error in deriving a scientific conclusion.What may be the problem here, is that when darwin encountered imprints of graduations in his research on life forms appearing in nature, he concluded that genesis was wrong, and his new found data correct. But another view could have been taken from the same research findings - without any conflict with genesis. This refers to the grads encountered by darwin can be limited to certain groupings of life forms, without cross-species, as stated in genesis. This validates darwin and genesis, excepting only in the tresholds of the graduations concluded by darwin's cross-species. But had darwin founded in alignment with genesis, it would conflict with the quest for a theology negating premise. I believe that in the latter mentioned quest, to promote cross-species and show it as a polar opposition to genesis, the cross-species premise had to be pursued, and controversial conclusions were made of the research data (retrovirus, etc). There is a blatant zeal to contradict anything in a theology - and this is understandable to a very large degree (there is hardly any science in most theologies), and the OT became cast in the same green bag. This even that Genesis is correct to a far positioned extent, contradicting only one aspect of darwin's theory.I think it calls for playing Devil's Advocate here, and assume that genesis is correct. What is the resultant premise, if there is no cross-species grads, and only 'within-species' grads (disregard the species categorising ratios here)? I think only one conclusion becomes pertinent here, and non-surprisingly, it is the only unacceptable one for a large sector of science, R & D grants, and vocational career status: Creationism remains intact!

Genesis says they were the first life form with speech ...

That speech is proven before the genesis dating is not conclusive by any means - not even as a theory. We have not a name or any history before 6000 - which is not dependent on writings.