Forumites,
I was going to save this topic until I finished my paper, but recent chat discussions bring a feeling in me saying that it should not wait.
Imagine a deck of 52 cards. You must draw one. The probability of you drawing
a card is 52/52 = 100% (since you must draw a card, and the card you draw doesn't matter).
Now, suppose you draw the Jack of Clubs. After doing so, you place it back in the deck and reshuffle, etc. Now, you must draw again. The chances of you getting
a card are still 100%, but the chances of you getting the same card as before--or in other words, the same card as from a different draw which was itself an independent event--is 1/52 = 1.9%.
In my opinion, this is similar to what we see when looking at present Asian skulls, and
H. erectus Asian skulls from so long ago. The skulls have the same features. It is as if
H. erectus grabbed the Jack of Clubs, and then
H. sapiens grabbed it right afterwards, i.e., extremely unlikely assuming they are independent events. I would first like to point out to the member from chat, that this is
not an "argument of incredulity" as the common Creo would put it--life can't evolve because of odds against it, etc.--but this is an argument based on sound reasoning.
In this case, the odds
are against the two populations evolving the same characteristics independent of each other. A better explanation is that they interbred, and the traits from
H. erectus were passed onto modern Asian populations. Like I said, given they are independent events, it is extremely unlikely to see what we see today. The more likely explanation is that they are
not independent events and are closely linked through breeding and gene passing.
Max
Biological Evolution, perhaps?
Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : grammar & subtitle
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species