Evolution vs Whatever

[SeattleGriz]

Thanks man. Glad you joined the discussion, for this is the sort of stuff I am looking for. Been a long time since I was in school and I know much has happened since then. Will look into everything you listed.

Nice surrender SG.

Not a surrender, as much as I need to research what DJ is saying before I post a reply. I graduated in 93. Long time ago and lots of stuff forgotten.

[D1B]

Nice surrender SG.

Not a surrender, as much as I need to research what DJ is saying before I post a reply. I graduated in 93. Long time ago and lots of stuff forgotten.

Good luck!

Oh, not much has happened in that discipline in 18 years.

[JMU DJ]

Not a surrender, as much as I need to research what DJ is saying before I post a reply. I graduated in 93. Long time ago and lots of stuff forgotten.

Shoot dude, this pub came out in 1991.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

Not a surrender, as much as I need to research what DJ is saying before I post a reply. I graduated in 93. Long time ago and lots of stuff forgotten.

Shoot dude, this pub came out in 1991.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we talked about that I surely don't remember. But something that was big was working the math of mutations backwards on the mtDNA. I assume you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve? To answer your previous question, no, I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve, how does the science community account for the fact that Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are in some estimates, anywhere from 60,000 to 140,000 years in difference? Seems if you were working the math backwards by using a constant rate of mutation as your guide, the numbers should be much closer, even if you have broken the lineage anywhere along the line.

As stated previously, I subscribe more to intelligent design. I just can't buy evolution and the belief we somehow lucked out and here we are today and that is exactly what neo Darwinism states. We are here due to the sum total of mutations and natural selection. Seems so much easier to believe there is some intelligent force directing.

For example, it is believable that DNA just miraculously formed, only to have the need for the replication enzymes needed to copy the DNA? If we are to believe Evolution, the enzymes MUST come after the DNA. There was no need for them before DNA. That's a lot of luck.

[SeattleGriz]

Not a surrender, as much as I need to research what DJ is saying before I post a reply. I graduated in 93. Long time ago and lots of stuff forgotten.

Shoot dude, this pub came out in 1991.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reading up on this one, this is a tough one, but the factors needed for such a fusion are extremely unlikely. I ain't got anything better on this one, as my science is rusty. Weak answer, I know.

This is a good one DJ and I need to brush up more on the "unlikely factors".

The 21-Hydroxylase is interesting as well. How can we not originate from the same source if we both have copied the same errors in our DNA. Gotta look into this as well.

[youngterrier]

Let me get this straight SG, the only problem you have with evolution in theory is that you think it's "very unlikely?"

[∞∞∞]

Here's something easy to understand, including the formation of DNA:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

Carl Sagan's ability to make complex things easy to understand is unmatched to this day.

[SeattleGriz]

Let me get this straight SG, the only problem you have with evolution in theory is that you think it's "very unlikely?"

Yes, that coupled with a ton of junk science. You must have missed the part in this thread about me yanking chains for fun. I already admitted I can only poke holes and don't have the science to put forth any differing ideas.

Pretty much trying to show how the Evolutionary theory is just like Global Warming. A cash cow that cannot be questioned by anyone and if they do, they are crazy and belittled.

If so solid, why not allow dissent and prove it with science? Because they can't.

This is very revealing of the latest missing link Ida.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... found.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.

"This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs.

"This specimen looks like a really early fossil monkey that belongs to the group that includes us," said Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study, published this week in the journal PLoS ONE.

But there's a big gap in the fossil record from this time period, Richmond noted. Researchers are unsure when and where the primate group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans split from the other group of primates that includes lemurs.

"[Ida] is one of the important branching points on the evolutionary tree," Richmond said, "but it's not the only branching point."

At least one aspect of Ida is unquestionably unique: her incredible preservation, unheard of in specimens from the Eocene era, when early primates underwent a period of rapid evolution. (Explore a prehistoric time line.)

"From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there," Richmond explained. "So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology."

Hmmm, that a lot of uncertainty for something so certain, which turned out to be wrong.

See? Circular reasoning. You believe one thing hard enough, you can make everything fit!

[Vidav]

Shoot dude, this pub came out in 1991.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we talked about that I surely don't remember. But something that was big was working the math of mutations backwards on the mtDNA. I assume you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve? To answer your previous question, no, I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve, how does the science community account for the fact that Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are in some estimates, anywhere from 60,000 to 140,000 years in difference? Seems if you were working the math backwards by using a constant rate of mutation as your guide, the numbers should be much closer, even if you have broken the lineage anywhere along the line.

As stated previously, I subscribe more to intelligent design. I just can't buy evolution and the belief we somehow lucked out and here we are today and that is exactly what neo Darwinism states. We are here due to the sum total of mutations and natural selection. Seems so much easier to believe there is some intelligent force directing.

For example, it is believable that DNA just miraculously formed, only to have the need for the replication enzymes needed to copy the DNA? If we are to believe Evolution, the enzymes MUST come after the DNA. There was no need for them before DNA. That's a lot of luck.

Regardless of how small the probability of life originating on any given planet, remember it only had to happen once. There are billions of planets out there and most are probably empty of life (obviously we have no way of knowing for a majority of them).

I think it is way harder to believe that some intelligent force directed it because where did they come from? There had to be a beginning of life at some point. Or if you say that this intelligent force doesn't need a creator, then isn't that even harder to believe in than "lucking out"??

[youngterrier]

Let me get this straight SG, the only problem you have with evolution in theory is that you think it's "very unlikely?"

Yes, that coupled with a ton of junk science. You must have missed the part in this thread about me yanking chains for fun. I already admitted I can only poke holes and don't have the science to put forth any differing ideas.

Pretty much trying to show how the Evolutionary theory is just like Global Warming. A cash cow that cannot be questioned by anyone and if they do, they are crazy and belittled.

If so solid, why not allow dissent and prove it with science? Because they can't.

I got a B in biology....so I don't care

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, that coupled with a ton of junk science. You must have missed the part in this thread about me yanking chains for fun. I already admitted I can only poke holes and don't have the science to put forth any differing ideas.

Pretty much trying to show how the Evolutionary theory is just like Global Warming. A cash cow that cannot be questioned by anyone and if they do, they are crazy and belittled.

If so solid, why not allow dissent and prove it with science? Because they can't.

I got a B in biology....so I don't care

Read my add on to your original post above please. It sheds light on the attitude of the science community and lack of proof. Many "leaps of faith".

[SeattleGriz]

Regardless of how small the probability of life originating on any given planet, remember it only had to happen once. There are billions of planets out there and most are probably empty of life (obviously we have no way of knowing for a majority of them).

I think it is way harder to believe that some intelligent force directed it because where did they come from? There had to be a beginning of life at some point. Or if you say that this intelligent force doesn't need a creator, then isn't that even harder to believe in than "lucking out"??

I get what you are saying Vidav, I really do.

[travelinman67]

I think it is way harder to believe that some intelligent force directed it because where did they come from? There had to be a beginning of life at some point.

Along this same line...what are the universe's boundaries? If the universe is continually expanding, what exists beyond infinity?



Our minds are not developed to the point we can understand creation/creator.

[SeattleGriz]

Shoot dude, this pub came out in 1991.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we talked about that I surely don't remember. But something that was big was working the math of mutations backwards on the mtDNA. I assume you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve? To answer your previous question, no, I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve, how does the science community account for the fact that Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are in some estimates, anywhere from 60,000 to 140,000 years in difference? Seems if you were working the math backwards by using a constant rate of mutation as your guide, the numbers should be much closer, even if you have broken the lineage anywhere along the line.

As stated previously, I subscribe more to intelligent design. I just can't buy evolution and the belief we somehow lucked out and here we are today and that is exactly what neo Darwinism states. We are here due to the sum total of mutations and natural selection. Seems so much easier to believe there is some intelligent force directing.

For example, it is believable that DNA just miraculously formed, only to have the need for the replication enzymes needed to copy the DNA? If we are to believe Evolution, the enzymes MUST come after the DNA. There was no need for them before DNA. That's a lot of luck.

Here is a good example of circular reasoning in regards to the mtDNA. The studies above list Mito Eve as being 200,000 years old. Her mtDNA is passed along to both children and started with Eve. The Y Chromo Adam studies have him calculated around 60,000 years ago. His DNA is only passed along through boys.

Since I believe in the Bible, it is proof that the flood actually happened because the mtDNA came from the original Eve and the Y Chromo Adam could only have come from Noah forward as everyone else but Noah's sons on the male side were wiped out.

SEE! PROOF of a cataclysmic flood that wiped everyone except Noah and his family off the Earth. Don't look at me funny because molecular evolution proved Noah and the flood were real. Circular reasoning. Try hard enough and you can make any story you like fit into your beliefs.

[Vidav]

I think it is way harder to believe that some intelligent force directed it because where did they come from? There had to be a beginning of life at some point.

Along this same line...what are the universe's boundaries? If the universe is continually expanding, what exists beyond infinity?



Our minds are not developed to the point we can understand creation/creator.

Poor job by the creator then.

[polsongrizz]

+2

Looks like SeaGriz just got back from a conference and is ready to go, better brush up boys.

http://www.nwcreation.net/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually, I just got back from Bible Camp where I learned to be more judgmental (stolen from The Simpsons).

Get a job you right wing churcher fuck...

[SeattleGriz]

Actually, I just got back from Bible Camp where I learned to be more judgmental (stolen from The Simpsons).[/q
Get a job you right wing churcher fuck...

[LeadBolt]

For something to be proved scientifically, it needs to be observable and repeatable. Creation of the universe and life forms, by whatever mechanism is not. Therefore neither evolution nor other methods are scientific.

Micro-evolution, changes within species have been widely observed and repeated and are thus scientifically observable, however macro-evolution, when one species changes into another have not been observed and are therefore not scientifically proven.

The question was asked earlier if evolution and intelligent design/creation were necessarily mutually exclusive. Darwin did not think that they were.

[JMU DJ]

I got a B in biology....so I don't care

Read my add on to your original post above please. It sheds light on the attitude of the science community and lack of proof. Many "leaps of faith".

Those "leaps of faith" you describe only deal with fossil records. Are you saying the genetic findings are also leaps of faith?

If we talked about that I surely don't remember. But something that was big was working the math of mutations backwards on the mtDNA. I assume you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve? To answer your previous question, no, I don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

If you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve, how does the science community account for the fact that Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve are in some estimates, anywhere from 60,000 to 140,000 years in difference? Seems if you were working the math backwards by using a constant rate of mutation as your guide, the numbers should be much closer, even if you have broken the lineage anywhere along the line.

As stated previously, I subscribe more to intelligent design. I just can't buy evolution and the belief we somehow lucked out and here we are today and that is exactly what neo Darwinism states. We are here due to the sum total of mutations and natural selection. Seems so much easier to believe there is some intelligent force directing.

For example, it is believable that DNA just miraculously formed, only to have the need for the replication enzymes needed to copy the DNA? If we are to believe Evolution, the enzymes MUST come after the DNA. There was no need for them before DNA. That's a lot of luck.

Here is a good example of circular reasoning in regards to the mtDNA. The studies above list Mito Eve as being 200,000 years old. Her mtDNA is passed along to both children and started with Eve. The Y Chromo Adam studies have him calculated around 60,000 years ago. His DNA is only passed along through boys.

Since I believe in the Bible, it is proof that the flood actually happened because the mtDNA came from the original Eve and the Y Chromo Adam could only have come from Noah forward as everyone else but Noah's sons on the male side were wiped out.

SEE! PROOF of a cataclysmic flood that wiped everyone except Noah and his family off the Earth. Don't look at me funny because molecular evolution proved Noah and the flood were real. Circular reasoning. Try hard enough and you can make any story you like fit into your beliefs.

Yes, the Y chromosome is passed down from Father to son and mutations can be found almost every generation. But since you believe in the Bible, I think we can explain away the lengths of time you are speaking of. You see, there is no mention of the longevity of women in the bible (what a misogynistic piece of manure pile), I'm assuming this means they lived fast and died hard. However, it is known that Methuselah lived to be near 1,000 years old. That means, 1,000 year of no genetic variance in the population while ol' Methuselah was plugging way. The Bible explains it all right there.


... along with the turning sticks into snakes any everything, yadda yadda yadda.


But to Answer you question seriously. mtEve is thought to have originated anywhere from 140-200K years ago. Recent studies now show that Y-Adam was on earth around 142K years ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9711001649" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JMU DJ]

For example, it is believable that DNA just miraculously formed, only to have the need for the replication enzymes needed to copy the DNA? If we are to believe Evolution, the enzymes MUST come after the DNA. There was no need for them before DNA. That's a lot of luck.

Check out Ribozymes or some Gerald Joyce publications. There's been a few articles published where they've found RNA molecules that can replicate itself and other RNAs. Granted, this was done through in vitro evolution.

[travelinman67]

Along this same line...what are the universe's boundaries? If the universe is continually expanding, what exists beyond infinity?



Our minds are not developed to the point we can understand creation/creator.

Poor job by the creator then.

Sex is a great mitigator.

[D1B]

Poor job by the creator then.

Sex is a great mitigator.

So is weed and LSD.

[death dealer]

Along this same line...what are the universe's boundaries? If the universe is continually expanding, what exists beyond infinity?



Our minds are not developed to the point we can understand creation/creator.

Poor job by the creator then.

Unless of course his grand plan hinges on the ability to dominate and lord over us. Just the cosmic "Man" keeping the people down man.

[alvin kayak]

If AIDS is intelligently designed, then that designer is a F****ing pr***. I don't care if it was a deity or Bon Jovi.

[SeattleGriz]

If AIDS is intelligently designed, then that designer is a F****ing pr***. I don't care if it was a deity or Bon Jovi.

Do you have AIDS? Then what is your issue? Don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex.

Not trying to harsh, but those are the cold hard facts. You don't want AIDS, wear protection. Problem solved.