[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, History is what humans have documented in writing or by other methods. History is about words recorded ( or as art or symbols that can be interpreted for information about a era of human activity). Otherwise you have pre-history. Pre-history is all that took place before some humans keep some kind of documented record of it. Pre-history and history are not the same thing. Nor shall post history be the same as history because writing will be a obsolete form of commuication. And so in most schools of thought we have. Pre-history. History. and the potential of post-history.

Not even historians will buy your concept of history. A great deal of history is constructed from physical evidence. Archeological sites, old documents, relics, myths and stories both verbal and written. Many of these sites being excavated are well within the time frame of written history. The problem with any written account is that it is a single person’s view and in many cases was written long after the event occurred. There is much in history that is purported to have happened that is just myth and much that has happened that has just gone unrecorded. If your guy is calibrating his method against written history I am already doubtful.

Please state how the human body has evolved.

Are you kidding? Rare blood disorders due to genetic mutations. Blood types that only exist in isolated populations. Island populations that are mostly color blind. Differences in skin color, hair pigmentation, shape of the eyes. Where do you think race comes from? Soul please do not use [Techno] in your name. You are just too clueless about physical reality.

I never stated that novelty accounts for everything that has ever happened, that would be as foolish as saything that evolution is caused because of random accidents only.

aTechno, random variation is an important part of evolution. Perhaps you should learn the theory of evolution.

However most science would support the idea that novelty (aka random or unexpected events) could trigger changes and evolutionary adaptations.

I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments.

Are you sure you support science? Without novelty you have the option of a planned design that is pre-determined - (by what or Who?).

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you wish to flip flop and take a religious perspective then that is fine with me, but not sure wich point you are trying to establish, or where-in your confusion sits. Technosoul.

What perspective is that? Can you explain the scientific perspective? I doubt it. Every post you have made confuses religion with science. You continuously exhibit your profound ignorance of common scientific knowledge yet you like to let on that you are hip when it comes to science. Please stop the charade.

Starboy