Page 4 of 12 [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

31 Jul 2014, 4:06 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
Certain churches are going to lose a lot of members in the future unless they man up and admit they were wrong about this.

Most have already moved the goalposts by accepting theistic evolution.

Some numbers:

Image



TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 4:16 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
The good news is that as we learn more and more about the mechanisms and history of evolution sooner or later this information will trickle down to the public and more and more people will realize how much they have been LIED to by some religious sources about this subject. I know I don't like being lied to, and I think most other humans also don't appreciate being lied to. Certain churches are going to lose a lot of members in the future unless they man up and admit they were wrong about this.


The problem is people tend to believe propaganda when they are consistently fed a diet of it. The Jehovah's Witnesses are indoctrinated with creationism from the outset, they even indoctrinate their children and similarly other fundamentalist religious organisations. Those who are indoctrinated never get to see the truth or they are literally prevented from seeing it as per my example above of the Muslim students banned by their imam from attending the classes on evolution at university. In certain cultures, particularly within Islam, evolution is often forbidden knowledge. Then there are these creationist nuts who set up creationist websites and spread a whole load of misinformation and outright lies but the layman can't see through their bogus "science" and realise they are talking nonsense... rather like Hooday on here recently who started spouting the laws of thermodynamics in an attempt to discredit evolution - this might seem intimidating to those without a scientific background, but I and several others knew he was just using big words and science that he clearly didn't understand and was just parroting misinformation he'd picked up off a creationist website. Maybe this ignorance about evolution will carry on indefinitely amongst certain religious people for whom evolution is a step too far against their beliefs. Given the choice of the truth or their beliefs, they choose their beliefs.

:shrug:


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 4:24 am

Anyone looking forward to Prometheus 2 to see how aliens may have originally designed humans, and there was no evolution per se?

Our "GOD" may have encoded the "primordial goo" with the pre-determination of humans, so that "evolution" is just an illusion.

Image


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 4:36 am

^ Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 4:53 am

TallyMan wrote:
Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence.


My "conjecture" is the premise of Prometheus movies, which is why the aliens are called "engineers". Sure, it is complete fiction.

However, you are the one adamantly asserting it happened the way you say, so you are the one with the burden of proof to show that it could
not have happened per alien "engineers".

TallyMan wrote:

Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Why couldn't our alien "GOD" create it that way ? Perhaps, he didn't see the need for a huge divergence in DNA.

There is still evolution in Prometheus, just pre-determined evolution.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 5:16 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:

Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Why couldn't our alien "GOD" create it that way ? Perhaps, he didn't see the need for a huge divergence in DNA.

There is still evolution in Prometheus, just pre-determined evolution.


Analysis of DNA shows that humans are part of the family tree of animals that have evolved from each other sharing common ancestors going back many millions of years. Humans just didn't suddenly appear from nowhere with our own specific DNA, unconnected to any other animals. Early humans also cross bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans and we have remnants of their DNA in our own. Looking slightly further away in our family tree, we share 95% of the same DNA as our cousins the chimpanzees. Evolution is a slow, ongoing process; assuming humanity survives, we will likely have changed and evolved into other forms of hominids in a few more million years.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 5:26 am

TallyMan wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:

Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Why couldn't our alien "GOD" create it that way ? Perhaps, he didn't see the need for a huge divergence in DNA.

There is still evolution in Prometheus, just pre-determined evolution.


Analysis of DNA shows that humans are part of the family tree of animals that have evolved from each other sharing common ancestors going back many millions of years. Humans just didn't suddenly appear from nowhere with our own specific DNA, unconnected to any other animals. Early humans also cross bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans and we have remnants of their DNA in our own. Looking slightly further away in our family tree, we share 95% of the same DNA as our cousins the chimpanzees. Evolution is a slow, ongoing process; assuming humanity survives, we will likely have changed and evolved into other forms of hominids in a few more million years.


This "analysis" is just spotting similarities in the DNA, and then making the assumption that similarity must mean ancestry?

That is no proof. That is assuming what you intend to prove - a fallacy.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 5:32 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:

Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Why couldn't our alien "GOD" create it that way ? Perhaps, he didn't see the need for a huge divergence in DNA.

There is still evolution in Prometheus, just pre-determined evolution.


Analysis of DNA shows that humans are part of the family tree of animals that have evolved from each other sharing common ancestors going back many millions of years. Humans just didn't suddenly appear from nowhere with our own specific DNA, unconnected to any other animals. Early humans also cross bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans and we have remnants of their DNA in our own. Looking slightly further away in our family tree, we share 95% of the same DNA as our cousins the chimpanzees. Evolution is a slow, ongoing process; assuming humanity survives, we will likely have changed and evolved into other forms of hominids in a few more million years.


This "analysis" is just spotting similarities in the DNA, and then making the assumption that similarity must mean ancestry?

That is no proof.


It is a case of connect the dots, with millions of dots there to draw the picture and conclusions from. I'd definitely call it proof. It is either proof or an incredibly massive coincidence of unbelievable proportions. That is before even factoring in mitochondrial DNA which passes down the maternal line.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 5:50 am

TallyMan wrote:

It is a case of connect the dots, with millions of dots there to draw the picture and conclusions from. I'd definitely call it proof. It is either proof or an incredibly massive coincidence of unbelievable proportions. That is before even factoring in mitochondrial DNA which passes down the maternal line.


It would be an inductive argument.

I am not a biologist, however, it does not seem like they can show that similarity means ancestry. Especially when I read this ...

"In human mitochondrial genetics, there is debate over whether or not paternal mtDNA transmission is possible. Many studies hold that paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_m ... ansmission

Without parent mitochondrial DNA being passed down, then "DNA evolution evidence" is lost, right ? All you would have left is "connecting the dots" with similarities, and assuming similarity means ancestry. A possibly very good inductive argument at best.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 6:11 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:

It is a case of connect the dots, with millions of dots there to draw the picture and conclusions from. I'd definitely call it proof. It is either proof or an incredibly massive coincidence of unbelievable proportions. That is before even factoring in mitochondrial DNA which passes down the maternal line.


It would be an inductive argument.

I am not a biologist, however, it does not seem like they can show that similarity means ancestry. Especially when I read this ...

"In human mitochondrial genetics, there is debate over whether or not paternal mtDNA transmission is possible. Many studies hold that paternal mtDNA is never transmitted to offspring".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_m ... ansmission

Without parent mitochondrial DNA being passed down, then "DNA evolution evidence" is lost, right ? All you would have left is "connecting the dots" with similarities, and assuming similarity means ancestry. A possibly very good inductive argument at best.


No, of course not! Mitochondria evolve and continue to evolve as living organisms in their own right. The fact they are passed down the mammalian maternal line is irrelevant to their evolution. What we do see from mitochondrial DNA is that they have evolved and their genetic make-up changes over millions of years and this produces yet another family tree that runs parallel to that of the evolution of each animal and plant on the planet. On the more recent scale, the analysis of evolution of mitochondrial DNA has been used to show the paths taken by early man after leaving Africa and spreading to all parts of the world.

The family tree evidence in DNA showing evolution of all plants and animals (including humans) is impossible to deny. It isn't simply down to a few vague similarities between species as you seem to be implying. We are talking about a massive amount of DNA data showing the relationships in the most minuscule detail. In conjunction with the fossil record we have time scales too. The amount of information showing evolution to be a fact is absolutely overwhelming.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,761
Location: temperate zone

31 Jul 2014, 6:13 am

TallyMan wrote:
^ Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Not only that but hie is actually ADMITTING that all of the evidence is for evolution, and none is for creation.Hie argument is based solely on concocting a convoluted scenario to explain why that evidence is somehow fake.



TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 6:18 am

naturalplastic wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
^ Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Not only that but hie is actually ADMITTING that all of the evidence is for evolution, and none is for creation.Hie argument is based solely on concocting a convoluted scenario to explain why that evidence is somehow fake.


Yes, indeed. By way of analogy it is like trying to say the Mona Lisa painting is not related to an identical painting where she has a single hair painted differently. Either the second painting is "related" to the first (i.e. an imperfect copy / derivative) or it is an entirely original work and it is a massive coincidence that the second painting looks almost identical. Sure you could say the second painting isn't based on the first but I ain't buying it! :lol:


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 6:42 am

TallyMan wrote:
What we do see from mitochondrial DNA is that they have evolved and their genetic make-up changes over millions of years and this produces yet another family tree that runs parallel to that of the evolution of each animal and plant on the planet. On the more recent scale, the analysis of evolution of mitochondrial DNA has been used to show the paths taken by early man after leaving Africa and spreading to all parts of the world.


The tracing your ancestry is not reliable the problem is the assumptions have too many errors .....

"... most of the frequencies of DNA markers have known error rates"
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/20 ... y-testing/

Isn't the truth, that this is all "connect the dots", guesswork and assumptions ?


TallyMan wrote:
The family tree evidence in DNA showing evolution of all plants and animals (including humans) is impossible to deny. It isn't simply down to a few vague similarities between species as you seem to be implying. We are talking about a massive amount of DNA data showing the relationships in the most minuscule detail. In conjunction with the fossil record we have time scales too. The amount of information showing evolution to be a fact is absolutely overwhelming.


What you mean by "family tree evidence" is DNA similarity.

However, you are only assuming similar DNA things must have evolved from each other. You are assuming evolution and then saying, because of this assumption, you have proven evolution.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Last edited by LoveNotHate on 31 Jul 2014, 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,137
Location: USA

31 Jul 2014, 6:53 am

naturalplastic wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
^ Both of your conjectures are pure fantasy with no supporting evidence. Evidence for evolution on the other hand, particularly that relating to humans, is so strong as to constitute a mountain of proof. You just have to look at our DNA and compare it in detail with other animals.


Not only that but hie is actually ADMITTING that all of the evidence is for evolution, and none is for creation.Hie argument is based solely on concocting a convoluted scenario to explain why that evidence is somehow fake.


I never said it was fake. I stated the premise of the Prometheus movies.

Nothing said so far disproves the premise of alien "engineers" pre-determining evolution to make humans.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,833

31 Jul 2014, 7:02 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
No, of course not! Mitochondria evolve and continue to evolve as living organisms in their own right. The fact they are passed down the mammalian maternal line is irrelevant to their evolution.


Wiki states that studies show that mitochondrial DNA is not be passed down. That is why I bolded it.

So, it is confusing that you keep saying it is.


TallyMan wrote:
What we do see from mitochondrial DNA is that they have evolved and their genetic make-up changes over millions of years and this produces yet another family tree that runs parallel to that of the evolution of each animal and plant on the planet. On the more recent scale, the analysis of evolution of mitochondrial DNA has been used to show the paths taken by early man after leaving Africa and spreading to all parts of the world.


If mitochondrial DNA is not passed down then what you said is wrong ?

The tracing your ancestry is not reliable .... this has been in the news ... the problem the assumptions have too many errors ..

"... most of the frequencies of DNA markers have known error rates"
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/20 ... y-testing/

Isn't the truth, that this is all "connect the dots", guesswork and assumptions ?

TallyMan wrote:
The family tree evidence in DNA showing evolution of all plants and animals (including humans) is impossible to deny. It isn't simply down to a few vague similarities between species as you seem to be implying. We are talking about a massive amount of DNA data showing the relationships in the most minuscule detail. In conjunction with the fossil record we have time scales too. The amount of information showing evolution to be a fact is absolutely overwhelming.


What you mean by "family tree evidence" is DNA similarity.

However, you are only assuming similar DNA things must have evolved from each other. You are assuming evolution and then saying, because of this assumption, you have proven evolution.


Of course mitochondrial DNA is passed down from one generation to the next! How otherwise would you expect mitochondria to continue to exist in the next generation of plants or animals? The main difference is that mitochondria pass down the mammalian generations by hitching a lift inside the mammalian mothers egg. Humans. other animals, plants and many singular celled organisms are hosts to vast cities of these tiny critters. We live in a symbiotic relationship with them. They are dependent upon the plants and animals as hosts and we are dependent upon them for metabolising sugars and providing energy for us. Mitochondria are extremely old creatures, their origin going way back in time and they are amongst the earliest organisms to have evolved on the planet. We have studied their DNA and have followed their ancestry back tens of thousands of years in the humans who left Africa.

Your link to the arstechnica article, while interesting, is talking about how inaccurate cheap tests may be that are offered to people for tracing their ethnic origins using only a handful of genes as markers. The article is not related to the detailed study of DNA across all genes regarding the comparison of human DNA to that of other apes and other animals.

The family tree exists. You can deny it all you want and for some weird reason claim that each part of the tree isn't linked, but that would be silly. The image presented by DNA and fossil evidence is very much that of a tree, with new animals and plants evolving from older species over vast periods of time. Are you really suggesting that each and every new species suddenly appeared from nowhere - maybe created by a god or put here by mischievous aliens at multiple times over millions of years? Are you also suggesting that the "ancestors" of those new species aren't really their ancestors at all, despite each "new" species having DNA that is almost identical to its precursor? If this is what you are suggesting it is beyond ridiculous.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.