| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
If you are saying that Tiamat (Chaos) is the mother of all, then you might be on to something.
"When the sky above was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen,
When of the gods none had been called into being..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Catman wrote: |
| 99.5% because they were our closest living relative. |
At this point I'd better break it to you that humans are up to 1% genetically different, Not 0.5%.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/genetic-breakthrough-that-reveals-the-differences-between-humans-425432.html
So all you're confirming here is that the so-called "neanderthals" are well within the range of current (never mind prehistoric) human genetic diversity.
| Northway wrote: |
| and claims victory by making arguments so premised on religious belief |
My arguments are all science-based. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Northway wrote: |
| and claims victory by making arguments so premised on religious belief |
My arguments are all science-based. |
Abraham and Isaac? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| My arguments are all science-based. |
Yes, "science" via discovery.org or reformation.org. 
Last edited by Underwaterbob on Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
Yes, its called theistic evolution. Its a very common (and unobjectionable) viewpoint. Over 38% of Americans accept this viewpoint (only 16% believe in atheistic evolution). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
Yes, its called theistic evolution. Its a very common (and unobjectionable) viewpoint. Over 38% of Americans accept this viewpoint (only 16% believe in atheistic evolution). |
I always thought this was weird, people can accept the idea of an all knowing, all powerful being pulling the strings but can't accept the idea that he would be smart enough to come up with evolution to achieve his goals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Out of Africa: yeah probably almost a sure thing but it is always wise to leave the door open to other possibilities. The use of mitichondrial DNA might be a problem! I support the Out of Africa idea with reservations. One of the problems with developing alternatives is that the whole issue some how becomes suffused with race politics. Something when talking about these creatures is not really an issue. But it is a good thing to continue to argue these ideas. Punctuated equalibrium might be able to explain some of the problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Northway wrote: |
| and claims victory by making arguments so premised on religious belief |
My arguments are all science-based. |
Abraham and Isaac? |
I gave one or more credible links showing the dna of arabs and jews conforms to the biblical account of Abraham being the father of both groups.
Or do you doubt the complimentary accounts of the bible, torah and koran? 3 lines of evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Gerous
Joined: 27 May 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sallymonster wrote: |
| You know, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe God created a single cell, and all other life forms evolved from there. |
That is what I've always said: God created evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
I gave one or more credible links showing the dna of arabs and jews conforms to the biblical account of Abraham being the father of both groups.
Or do you doubt the complimentary accounts of the bible, torah and koran? 3 lines of evidence. |
DNA confirms that they're related peoples, it says nothing about Abraham. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ELGORDO
Joined: 12 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hate to break it to you, but the sub-saharan population of africans are a 70 IQ population at most. The pygmy population of the DRC (Dem Rep of Congo) is even less @ 57. Higher are Ethiopians, lower are Ugandans. Either way the indigenous population is what the UN would refer to as "in need of, and worthy of exogenous aid." NGOs know this well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ELGORDO wrote: |
| Hate to break it to you, but the sub-saharan population of africans are a 70 IQ population at most. The pygmy population of the DRC (Dem Rep of Congo) is even less @ 57. Higher are Ethiopians, lower are Ugandans. Either way the indigenous population is what the UN would refer to as "in need of, and worthy of exogenous aid." NGOs know this well. |
You wouldn't have any, you know, evidence for this claim would you? (Preferably something not published by the University of Alabama in 1856, please.) I will openly admit that I am skeptical of someone's intelligence who finds human intelligence to oh so conveniently fit color-of-skin lines. Call me a liberal if you must. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Don't humans and chimps have about 98% similar DNA? |
No.
That was just evolutionist propoganda once again.
| Quote: |
Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.
It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. |
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html
We are less than 95% similar. And be aware that even a 5% difference involves some 150 000 000 base pairs being different.
We are closer to mice than we are to chimpanzees. (99%).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
We are also 90%+ identical to pufferfish and zebrafish.
Because genetic similarity does not prove ancestry.
It does however, show that the creator used the same genetic material to make all living things. A little bit like a car manufacturer uses chrome on most of its different models. |
The question has never been shared similarity per se, but the distribution of shared similarities. That problem has no clear analogy to the manufacturing business.
The problem of relationship is the problem of homology, not of shared similarity. Humans and salamanders have five digits on their hands, but humans are still more closely related to horses than to salamanders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article, thanks for that. It states that this greater than previously expected diversity is caused by variation in the number of copies of the same genes among the human population.
Neanderthals share 98% of our genes, but 2% of our genes are not shared at all. In other words, it isn't a matter of variation in the number of copies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
I gave one or more credible links showing the dna of arabs and jews conforms to the biblical account of Abraham being the father of both groups.
Or do you doubt the complimentary accounts of the bible, torah and koran? 3 lines of evidence. |
DNA confirms that they're related peoples, it says nothing about Abraham. |
Nevertheless they are on the same branch of the human family tree, which means there was a common forefather.
If they really want to test the accuracy of the Bible, they should look for Abraham's bones in the Machphelah cave in the field of Ephron, which faces Mamre. Although I don't know if there's a way of distinguishing the first possessor of a genetic marker from his descendants... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
