Common ancestors and common muck (to forego common sense)

I've been watching a lecture series by Lee Silver, called 'The science of the Self'. I've got a few comments below on lecture three.

Quotes and comments;

1. Silver tells us that apes and humans had a common ancestor. [1.]

- No one seems to know what this mythical ancestor was. (We might call it the ghost in the Darwinian machine.) I find this claim comical at best. One wonders how such an important fellow could be unknown :=)

Maybe someone could tell me why the ape, who also had this ancestor, hasn't evolved (progressed) any farther than his ancestor, (we're told this ancestor, whatever it was, wouldn't be much different from an ape.) and man has. Isn't that a bit odd?

- Evolutionists can't point to any speciation event where the descendent is magnitudes superior to its ancestor. Despite this. the theory gets endless propagated. Are any of the Galapogos finches a thousand times smarter than their ancestors?

- This claim by Silver isn't an empirical observation. No one has seen anything remotely close to this happen. (Evolutionists love fossils because they can't speak, and can be used anyway people want.) Evolutionists arrange fossils the way movie directors arrange photographs. (We might say that the 'magic of evolution' is based on the illusion of movement.) i.e. the transformation from ape to man is an illusion based on a selective process of arrangement. (What is called natural selection might better be called theory selection :=)

2. 'There was no first human being...' he tells us. (i.e. there was a gradual transformation from animal to human.

- We might wonder why this only happened once. eg. why don't other animals (fish or birds) gradually become Einstein smart?

- He compares this process to going from the color green, gradually to blue. 'There is no cutoff from green to blue...' he tells us. I consider this pure myth. (The comparison itself meaningless.) Even within evolutionary theory there is no other example offered of an animal becoming gradually smarter and smarter... more and more able. At the very least this in itself is odd is it not?

Again; I have to stress that this is not science; not empirical.
A dog becoming a cat would be a million times more easy (and less astounding) but we know from a long history of breeding experiments that dogs never become anything but dogs. (Doesn't this matter? Don't experiments matter if they go against your theory?)

3. He tells us some people (Silver himself?) think chimps should have the same rights as humans.

- I wonder if they should get tenure :=)
I consider people like this to be clowns, and it's no wonder to me that Darwinism appeals to them. No one on earth really believes this notion; but clearly some people have a lot of fun pretending they do.

Notes;
1. The science of self - Lee Silver (TTC) lecture #3. (What is a human being?)