The human-chimpanzee common ancestor model: The issues.

[Mr TB]

evolution doesnt deal from Molecules to "LUCA". Try a bit of honesty here mate. I know its a hard concept for you, but give it a try sometime.

Everyone know that evolution is at a loss when the question concerning , how the first life came about, comes around.

Just admit that you can not explain the concept , is it that hard for you?
Evolutionary biologists are dishonest in calling the theory evolution...is it not????
It should be "the hypothesis of biological evolution"

 

[w1z4rd]

Everyone know that evolution is at a loss when the question concerning , how the first life came about, comes around.

Just admit that you can not explain the concept , is it that hard for you?
Evolutionary biologists are dishonest in calling the theory evolution...is it not????
It should be "the hypothesis of biological evolution"

Just like the germ theory of disease does not answer the questions of relativity. I hate repeating myself to the legally retarded.

 

[cyghost]

Everyone know that evolution is at a loss when the question concerning , how the first life came about, comes around.

Everyone knows evolution does not try to explain how life come about.

Just admit that you can not explain the concept , is it that hard for you?

I have admitted it many times. Perhaps you should take up reading and learn how to. How can you possibly be so stupid on this???

Evolutionary biologists are dishonest in calling the theory evolution...is it not????
It should be "the hypothesis of biological evolution"

No. Wtf is an evolutionary biologist by the way?

Here is a fun thing to do, go find out how many biologists do not hold the Theory of Evolution to be on the right tract. Then you might compare that with the Steves of alloytoo's list above. [if this is somehow unclear I meant how many biologists have serious problems with evolution]

fearisgood ~ love the robot analogy mate, fitting for fundumbmentalists. (not saying you are one btw, haven't quite made up my mind about that yet )

I haven't looked at your deleterious mutation rate and cost theory but promise to do so, hopefully later today.

 

[Claymore]

all whom seem to have mysteriously died out with humans being the only bipedal hominid.

I'm not sure what's so mysterious about it; humans, thanks most likely to better communication methods, have proved remarkably good at wiping out rivals or competitors in their niches.

 

[w1z4rd]

I wonder if the mods here know the difference between science and pseudoscience. Cause I am waiting for discussions on UFO`s to enter this thread any moment...

 

[Mr TB]

I wonder if the mods here know the difference between science and pseudoscience. Cause I am waiting for discussions on UFO`s to enter this thread any moment...

Quote:CYGHOST
Just admit that you can not explain the concept , is it that hard for you?

I have admitted it many times. Perhaps you should take up reading and learn how to. How can you possibly be so stupid on this???

Yep, fully understood and accepted, your supporters however can not distinguish the difference...
Most of my the mistakes I made I will apologise or admit towards you unconditionally, the others hanging around here certainly not...
IMPO most of them are just not worthy of such personal trust...

 

[rwenzori]

I have admitted it many times. Perhaps you should take up reading and learn how to. How can you possibly be so stupid on this???

Nice Latin quote:

Bubbus, sed possum explicare. Non sed possum comprehendere.

Bubba, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

[Fearisgood]

evolution doesnt deal from Molecules to "LUCA". Try a bit of honesty here mate. I know its a hard concept for you, but give it a try sometime.

Science tries to explain the origin of life through evolutionary principles. Honest enough? Do you get that concept?

Evolutionary biologists are dishonest in calling the theory evolution...is it not????

Careful, biologists use the somatic evolution theory for the origin of cancer cells and it is becoming widely accepted. Off course mutations bugger everything and does not help the "origin from a single cell hypothesis". You might call them evolutionary biologists but many of them dont adhere to origin from a single cell hypothesis.

It should be "the hypothesis of biological evolution"

Maybe "the hypothesis of biological evolution from a single cell".

Everyone knows evolution does not try to explain how life come about.

Again... science does and with evolutionary principles.

fearisgood ~ love the robot analogy mate, fitting for fundumbmentalists.

Fundamentalism cuts both ways when debating origins.

I'm not sure what's so mysterious about it; humans, thanks most likely to better communication methods, have proved remarkably good at wiping out rivals or competitors in their niches.

Any proof in the fossil record of this happening to prove this ad hoc explanation? If you neatly pack all the bones we have from our supposed ancestors, they'll fit nicely on the back of a bakkie.

I wonder if the mods here know the difference between science and pseudoscience. Cause I am waiting for discussions on UFO`s to enter this thread any moment...

So... are you implying that deleterious mutation rates, cost theory, gene expression and brain expression, fossil interpretation etc.. are all pseudoscience? Im sure a lot of evolutionist fundumbmentalists are looking for bigfoot right now.

Nice Latin quote:

Bubbus, sed possum explicare. Non sed possum comprehendere.

Bubba, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

I can give you articles to go read and understand for yourself, but i cant make you. Comprende

 

[w1z4rd]

So... are you implying that deleterious mutation rates, cost theory, gene expression and brain expression, fossil interpretation etc.. are all pseudoscience? Im sure a lot of evolutionist fundumbmentalists are looking for bigfoot right now.

No. Take that forked tounge out of your mouth for a second, and slowly read over what I said. Also while you are at it, google and research the words , "science" and "pseudoscience". Your education appears lacking.

 

[Alan]

There is a link

 

[Claymore]

Any proof in the fossil record of this happening to prove this ad hoc explanation? If you neatly pack all the bones we have from our supposed ancestors, they'll fit nicely on the back of a bakkie.

Got any evidence of that? It may have been true several decades ago, but not any more.

 

[Mr TB]

Quote:FEARISGOOD
Originally Posted by Mr TB
Evolutionary biologists are dishonest in calling the theory evolution...is it not????

Careful, biologists use the somatic evolution theory for the origin of cancer cells and it is becoming widely accepted. Off course mutations bugger everything and does not help the "origin from a single cell hypothesis". You might call them evolutionary biologists but many of them dont adhere to origin from a single cell hypothesis.

I apologise, I understand that biology in various fields would not have developed as far as now was it not for the wide acceptance of "small" or in other words "micro"- evolution.
I am unsupportive only when this type of evolution is used as evidence for "large" or "macro"-evolution.
But I will indeed be more carefull in what I have to say in future, thanks...

 

[Fearisgood]

Got any evidence of that? It may have been true several decades ago, but not any more.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19478/A-Short-History-of-Nearly-EverythingBill-Bryson

...the whole of our understanding of human prehistory is based on the remains, often exceedingly fragmentary, of perhaps five thousand individuals. "You could fit it all into the back of a pickup truck if you didn't mind how much you jumbled everything up," Ian Tattersall, the bearded and friendly curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, replied when i asked him the size of the total world archive of hominid and early human bones.

Page 274-5, A plain Toyota bakkie, or that big Ford truck... depends how big you want it to be... Still pretty small i think.

(Emphasis mine)

I am unsupportive only when this type of evolution is used as evidence for "large" or "macro"-evolution.
[/COLOR]

You're not the only one, many scientists are also unsupportive of that notion.

 

[cyghost]

human-chimp genome

vestigal organs and here

stop the lies

no problem

and the complete list of stupid claims and proper responses

I like that site more and more

I'll look into your cost theory and deleterious mutation rate but are too tired from a long flight, FiG. Until another day.

EDIT: and PS >>> maaaaacro plus some evidence for "macro"

byebye

 

[Claymore]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19478/A-Short-History-of-Nearly-EverythingBill-Bryson

Page 274-5, A plain Toyota bakkie, or that big Ford truck... depends how big you want it to be... Still pretty small i think.

Hmm. It's a common notion, but not entirely supported, I think. As of 1976, there was a catalogue of the remains of about 4000 individual hominids (heck, there have been something like 400 Neanderthals discovered). The number is estimated to be in the tens of thousands now.

 

[Mr TB]

Quote:

The molecular issue, While it is important that we get our facts straight arguing about whether we are 98% or 95% similar is not the issue.

SCIENCE of course is heavily challenged explaining the existence of DNA in pure natural terms...

The Aheist's Riddle

 

[alloytoo]

Quote:

The molecular issue, While it is important that we get our facts straight arguing about whether we are 98% or 95% similar is not the issue.

SCIENCE of course is heavily challenged explaining the existence of DNA in pure natural terms...

The Aheist's Riddle

Lets examine the supposition shall we.

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

That it's a code I'll agree, that it's a language, I disagree, DNA is created through a series of complicated chemical reactions, similer inputs result in reasonably predictable outputs. It's a code in that the same combinations of geography & temperature result in predictable outcomes.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

Patently untrue, as I've demonstrated with weather.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

This is not only a conclusion based on an incorrect assumption, it's also a logically circular argument.

If DNA is the cause of Conscious mind (and there is no evidence of any other cause), and concious minds are the only creators of coded information then DNA is it's own cause.

 

[Mr TB]

Lets examine the supposition shall we.

Quote:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

That it's a code I'll agree, that it's a language, I disagree, DNA is created through a series of complicated chemical reactions, similer inputs result in reasonably predictable outputs. It's a code in that the same combinations of geography & temperature result in predictable outcomes.

Maybe you should rethink your disagreement concerning code and language you were not that thoughtfull in your suggestion...
Binary code is called machine language....
DNA code can be called gene language....
My prediction is that I did not push this anology to far because both concern information technology...

 

[alloytoo]

Maybe you should rethink your disagreement concerning code and language you were not that thoughtfull in your suggestion...
Binary code is called machine language....
DNA code can be called gene language....
My prediction is that I did not push this anology to far because both concern information technology...

Utlimately DNA is governed by the rules of organic chemistry, it's an incredibly complex subject which we're just beginning to understand.

Global weather phenomena is also and incredibly complex system which on a global level behave in a code like fashion.

That is only one example. there are thousands more. Like yourself Marshall likes to move the goal posts and simply ignore those which he couldn't challenge.

I have a simler theorem.

1. DNA is naturally occurring (in the absence of proof of existance of the Supernatural being)

2. All human and animal generated codes are ultimately a result of DNA.

3. Therefore all Codes are ultimately natural in origin.

 

[mancombseepgood]

*cough*
Chimpanzee = ape
Human = not ape

Whatever the DNA or microscopic differences, I think it's time people stopped the madness and take another look from a distance - get the full perspective... our children can teach us something about the difference between a chimp and a person.

Of course the only way anyone is going to put humans and chimps in the same picture is with the imagination... and we all know the potential for missing the point there.