Evolution

[Mike C]

Maikeru

 

Gumby? Is that the promiscuous primate?

 

Well, I think the humans are much worse.

And they were/are indoctrinated by the bible.

 

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Gumby? Is that the promiscuous primate?

No, that would be Pokey.

 

Well, I think the humans are much worse.

And they were/are indoctrinated by the bible.

 

So, how do you account for the 60% of Earth's inhabitants who are not Christian? They aren't indoctrinated by the bible too, are they? :shrug:

[Mike C]

No, that would be Pokey. :doh:

 

 

 

So, how do you account for the 60% of Earth's inhabitants who are not Christian? They aren't indoctrinated by the bible too, are they? ;)

 

The other 60% did not have 'advanced' weapons.

 

And around the bibles 'holy land', that is where the Joe Stalins, Islam, the popes purification genocides and Hitlers 'karmic' reaction to the Stalin attrocities does not include the other 60%.

In the Orient, China adopted the Joe Stalin communism and Mao promply murdered another million Chinese to add to the Middle East totals.

Ha ha.

 

NS

[REASON]

The other 60% did not have 'advanced' weapons.

 

And around the bibles 'holy land', that is where the Joe Stalins, Islam, the popes purification genocides and Hitlers 'karmic' reaction to the Stalin attrocities does not include the other 60%.

In the Orient, China adopted the Joe Stalin communism and Mao promply murdered another million Chinese to add to the Middle East totals.

Ha ha.

 

NS

 

Disjointed, conceptual stew. ;)

[Jester]

this thread has become useless.

 

its a shame because i am very interested in the future evolution of mankind. If this was going anywhere i would post my speculations.

 

What i will say is that these creation stories are only taken literally by madmen and idiots. Any intelligent person however, can look at them and appreciate them for their poetic and historical value.

 

Even if it is viewed as pure literary art, this story still deserves some kind of respect and attention. Take into account the age of this myth. It has been around in writing for thousands of years, and was probably around for a thousand years before that, being shared orally. Now consider the effect it has had on the world. Three separate religions all look to this story for inspiration and truth. It is obviously very important. Think about how this story has any relvance, has anything to tell us about our intellectual past and how it has affected our present culture and mindset. What kind of things do these stories tell us about people of the past? How does it show us how science can give us better explanations of reality than myths can? how can myths express things that science cant?

 

Ultimately-what is the evolution of man and how do these stories point to it?

[Mike C]

this thread has become useless.

 

its a shame because i am very interested in the future evolution of mankind. If this was going anywhere i would post my speculations.

 

What i will say is that these creation stories are only taken literally by madmen and idiots. Any intelligent person however, can look at them and appreciate them for their poetic and historical value.

 

Even if it is viewed as pure literary art, this story still deserves some kind of respect and attention. Take into account the age of this myth. It has been around in writing for thousands of years, and was probably around for a thousand years before that, being shared orally. Now consider the effect it has had on the world. Three separate religions all look to this story for inspiration and truth. It is obviously very important. Think about how this story has any relvance, has anything to tell us about our intellectual past and how it has affected our present culture and mindset. What kind of things do these stories tell us about people of the past? How does it show us how science can give us better explanations of reality than myths can? how can myths express things that science cant?

 

Ultimately-what is the evolution of man and how do these stories point to it?

 

Your second paragraph sums up the teachings of bible nicely. In comparson to Nature, its teachings are false.

 

My teachings of Nature as GOD is far more advanced than the bibles teachings.

Nature is a PICTURE of life as it exists today and in the past.

While the bible is just a language interpreted in differenr ways with different views, it cannot be a practical teacher.

It teaches chauvinism as practiced by the male lion who is a killer god.

So the disciples of this teaching do just that.

 

NS

[Jester]

why cant you stay on topic?

[Mike C]

why cant you stay on topic?

 

Well, I posted this Evolution topic to add more evidence in opposition to the biblicals creation theory.

 

But to get back on topic, on another site there was mentioned the single DNA source for the current humanity that exists. Have you explored that?

 

I asked a question then that if there was a 'time' table for this single source of our anscestors.

One reply was that ths period was from 5-7 million years ago.

 

So this means that our human specie underwent a progression of about

300,000 generations (20 years) of evolution. And this with 'no' evidence of evolution?

So this was shown that there is no fossil record to substantiate this evidence.

 

NS

[Eclogite]

Well, I posted this Evolution topic to add more evidence in opposition to the biblicals creation theory.

Your intention was not initally obvious. (Indeed it is only with this quoted statement that I am confident I do know your intent.)

Can you explain how a speculation, lacking in detail and justification, can be taken as evidence against biblical creation theory?

I venture to suggest you cannot explain it, since neither science nor theology work that way.

But to get back on topic, on another site there was mentioned the single DNA source for the current humanity that exists. Have you explored that?

Are you speaking about this? "Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans." Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked a question then that if there was a 'time' table for this single source of our anscestors. One reply was that ths period was from 5-7 million years ago.So this means that our human specie underwent a progression of about 300,000 generations (20 years) of evolution. And this with 'no' evidence of evolution?

I am not sure why you think there was no evidence of evolution. There are a number of intermediate forms, and near or more distant cousins, to be found in this time frame. Toegther they very clearly display significant evolutionary changes.

[Freddy]

Over on the Darwin re-visited thread in the Biology forum I mentioned Meave Leakey's new discovery.

 

"Did anyone see Meave Leakey's new discovery in Africa concerning human evolution?

 

"A new discovery suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis—and that the two may have been contemporaries.""

 

A New Discovery in Human Evolution - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com

[Mike C]

Can you explain how a speculation, lacking in detail and justification, can be taken as evidence against biblical creation theory?

I venture to suggest you cannot explain it, since neither science nor theology work that way.

 

I reviewed this thread again and decided to answer the above.

The 'Creationists' are the ones that primarily oppose Evolution.

 

I am an amateur physicist. So I believe that the creation theory is imposible according to the Laws of Conservation of Matter/Energy.

Besides, there are many other things in the bible that make it sound like Science Fiction.

 

Are you speaking about this? "Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans." Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure why you think there was no evidence of evolution. There are a number of intermediate forms, and near or more distant cousins, to be found in this time frame. Toegther they very clearly display significant evolutionary changes.

 

What is your version of the original Eve that we all descended from?

Was she an ape or a human being?

When I said there was no evidence to justify this 'original' Eve, I meant that the human anatomy of this Eve is not proven to have existed the millions of years ago that the DNA would give it.

 

Mike C (formerly NS)

[Eclogite]

I am an amateur physicist. So I believe that the creation theory is imposible according to the Laws of Conservation of Matter/Energy.

I cannot even grace myself with the title amateur physicist: interested bystander is as close as I can get. However, it is my defintive understanding that many/most physicists consider that the universal constants and laws such as the conservation of matter/energy came into being coincident with the Big Bang. Therefore the BB itself is not in violation of that law. Other physicists note that the BB may have emerged from pre-existing matter/energy, again with no violation of the law, even if it were in effect then.

Besides, there are many other things in the bible that make it sound like Science Fiction.

Not everything that sounds like a duck is a duck. I refer you, for example, to any Loony Tunes cartoon featuring a character called Daffy Duck.

.

What is your version of the original Eve that we all descended from? Was she an ape or a human being?

Human, almost certainly, and undoubtedly not an ape.

.

When I said there was no evidence to justify this 'original' Eve, I meant that the human anatomy of this Eve is not proven to have existed the millions of years ago that the DNA would give it.

I don't know where you got the millions of years from. Certainly not from reading the reference I gave. Wikipedia suggests 'Eve' lived 140,000 years ago. Other sources on the web suggest 200,000 years, but the figures are in agreement to a close order of magnitude.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Maybe the biblical genesis is just a metaphor for the actual beginning as laid out by those who couldn't understand the complex situation they were trying to convey. Remember how unadvanced humans were when they wrote the bible.

[Mike C]

I cannot even grace myself with the title amateur physicist: interested bystander is as close as I can get. However, it is my defintive understanding that many/most physicists consider that the universal constants and laws such as the conservation of matter/energy came into being coincident with the Big Bang. Therefore the BB itself is not in violation of that law. Other physicists note that the BB may have emerged from pre-existing matter/energy, again with no violation of the law, even if it were in effect then.Not everything that sounds like a duck is a duck. I refer you, for example, to any Loony Tunes cartoon featuring a character called Daffy Duck.

 

The BB is 'power' science.

The best way to refute any criticism is to discard it as a byproduct.

 

I enjoyed Daffy and Donald and most all the other cartoon characters. Ha ha.

 

.Human, almost certainly, and undoubtedly not an ape.

.I don't know where you got the millions of years from. Certainly not from reading the reference I gave. Wikipedia suggests 'Eve' lived 140,000 years ago. Other sources on the web suggest 200,000 years, but the figures are in agreement to a close order of magnitude.

 

One person quoted that figure on another thread.

I40,000 to 200,000 years is still not 6,000 years as was calculated from the generations listed in the bible.

Averaging the figures above and dividing by the age of a generation would equal about 10,000 generations.

How many were quoted in the bible? Not even close.

That is why the 6000 year figure pops up.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

Are you speaking about this? "Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans." Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I said there was no evidence to justify this 'original' Eve, I meant that the human anatomy of this Eve is not proven to have existed the millions of years ago that the DNA would give it.

This thread appears to be exhibiting several of the “misconceptions” described in the wikipedia link Eclogite provided. “Mitochondrial Eve” is NOT the first anatomically modern human being, the first hominid ancestor of H.Sapiens not shared by another living modern primate species, nor, of course, the Eve described in the Holy Bible. Mitochondrial Eve (Mt-MRCA) is the oldest female human that is the common female ancestor of every living human being – ie: the maternal most recent common ancestor (M-MRCA)

 

The Mt/M-MRCA has changed many times in the past, and could change in the future, when/if a large population of human beings fails to have descendents, such as during a natural or man-made catastrophy.

I40,000 to 200,000 years is still not 6,000 years as was calculated from the generations listed in the bible.

Averaging the figures above and dividing by the age of a generation would equal about 10,000 generations.

How many were quoted in the bible? Not even close.

That is why the 6000 year figure pops up.

As the wikipedia article notes,

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story may be considered unfortunate in that it has led to some misunderstandings among the general public.

On the other hand, his choice of this phrase has increased public awareness of phylogenetics and the role of mitochondrial DNA and “molecular clock” genetic dating techniques.

 

I found it interesting that a similar technique has been used to find the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (P-MRCA), a similar Biblically allusive name coined for this individual, “Y-chromosomal Adam” (Y-MRCA). Like our Mt/M-MRCA, our P/Y-MRCA is not a fixed individual, but has changed many times in the past, and could change in the future. Y-Adam is thought to have lived about 60,000 years ago.

 

It’s also worth noting that both genders of MRCA may be much younger than the 140,000 and 60,000 year estimates obtained through molecular biology techniques. The equating of the Mt/Y-MRCAs with the M/P-MRCAs assumes a “more tree-like than network-like” model of human descent. Recent research such as Joseph T Chang’s mathematical model-based theory that, for any two dates in recent human history separated by a sufficient time (around a couple of thousand years), the old population can be divided only into individuals who are ancestors of everyone in the new population, or those who have no living descendents (see 'Most recent common ancestor' of all living humans surprisingly recent and the more detailed RECENT COMMON ANCESTORS OF ALL PRESENT-DAY INDIVIDUALS) suggest that the M/P-MRCAs may be only a few thousands years old.

 

Note that this later theory (which, unfortunately, has yet to be given a catchy moniker) does not contradict the “molecular clock”-based Mt/Y-MRCA theories – that is, that Mt-Eve and Y-Adam lived - only that Mt-MRCA = M-MRCA and Y-MRCA = P-MRCA.

[Mike C]

To All

 

I do not know why they used DNA samplimg to corroborate the age levels of the skelatal remains of antropoids when 'carbon' dating would be more accurate?

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

I do not know why they used DNA samplimg to corroborate the age levels of the skelatal remains of antropoids when 'carbon' dating would be more accurate?

They don’t.

 

The above mentioned “molecular clock” technique and other techniques of molecular phylogeny are used to extrapolate when specific living or recently dead individuals of the same or different species shared a common ancestor. By determining what the genetic differences between two present-day individuals are, and knowing something of how and the rate at which genetic change occurs, it’s possible to estimate when they shared a common ancestor.

 

Although it’s possible to get small amounts of badly degraded DNA from ancient remains, it’s difficult, and fraught with problems, as such DNA will be in the form of very short segment, and much contaminated with that of more recently living organisms. While an interesting and valuable field in itself, the finding and reconstructing of actual ancient DNA is not the main business of molecular phylogeny. Rather, it’s business is, using mathematical techniques based on rules obtained from the basic molecular biology of “fresh” living cells, extrapolating backwards to determine the genomes of long-dead individuals and species who’s DNA is long decomposed beyond more than the most superficial recognition.

 

It’s really neat, but technically difficult, stuff, quite a bit discussed in these forums.