“Some of our features are indeed noticeably different enough that some of our forefathers believed they reduced certain people to the status of sub-human slaves.
I’m just saying...”
Well, modern evolutionists reject all of that, so they can’t really use that for an answer to the question. What I’m looking for are large scale morphological changes, of the type we could notice only from the fossil record if we didn’t have access to DNA.
If the two assumptions (constant rate of genetic change over long scales of time, and constant appearance of morphological changes accompanying that change over long scales of time) are both true, then we should expect to see something of that in the last 100,000 years for which we have a relatively large fossil record for homo sapiens.
It seems to me we actually do not see that, and the obvious conclusion I come to is that one or the other assumption (or both) is false, and therefore, the other speculative conclusions that evolutionists come to based on whichever assumption is false are also invalid.
Why? What value is it?
Would you consider the relatively recent evolution of wolves to many dog breeds as a satisfactory answer?
Boogieman: "If the two assumptions (constant rate of genetic change over long scales of time, and constant appearance of morphological changes accompanying that change over long scales of time) are both true, then we should expect to see something of that in the last 100,000 years for which we have a relatively large fossil record for homo sapiens."
But why assume such things, what evidence do we have that either is true?
Doesn't the fossil evidence manifestly show they're not true?
so what's the point of your exercise?
Boogieman: "It seems to me we actually do not see that, and the obvious conclusion I come to is that one or the other assumption (or both) is false, and therefore, the other speculative conclusions that evolutionists come to based on whichever assumption is false are also invalid."
I've seen nothing claiming either assumption is true, indeed, I've read for many years now that establishing and "average rate of change" in DNA has been problematic, with each new methodology producing different results.
I've read nothing recently saying "now scientists are confident of their rate of DNA change numbers."
My guess is the reason is that "average rate of change" can vary rather widely, depending on short-term conditions.