Evolution vs Y.E.C

[Sar1n]

That's funny that's the same view I have on totally arbitrary abiogenesis (also euphemistically known as Evolution)

Still can't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct processes? No wonder that you are unable to understand the processes driving evolution and thus consider then arbitrary. By the way, we already have models of how could abiogenesis happen, although they're still theoretical, and empirical confirmation will take some time.

@conon394 I think the word you meant is genetically, not genitally. Although that aspect would also certainly matter in such experiment. As anyone who owns dog knows, they will attempt to breed, regardless of race, but the execution of such feat between these races might turn out to be impossible.

[basics]

Sar1n,

Animals breed according to their kind.

[conon394]

Still can't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct processes? No wonder that you are unable to understand the processes driving evolution and thus consider then arbitrary. By the way, we already have models of how could abiogenesis happen, although they're still theoretical, and empirical confirmation will take some time.

@conon394 I think the word you meant is genetically, not genitally. Although that aspect would also certainly matter in such experiment. As anyone who owns dog knows, they will attempt to breed, regardless of race, but the execution of such feat between these races might turn out to be impossible.

Yep had a couple other typos as well. Yes they are still dogs as I said I just wonder allow if the morphological differences are sufficient to push them into 2 separate breeding populations.

Animals breed according to their kind.

I suppose somebody forgot to send a memo to Neandertals

[basics]

conon394,

Take a DNA test and don't be surprised if it turns out that you have a Neanderthal link in your system. They were human beings.

[Sar1n]

conon394,

Take a DNA test and don't be surprised if it turns out that you have a Neanderthal link in your system. They were human beings.

As DNA evidence proves, modern humans are cross between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthaliensis.....

...who lived in a period roughly 400 000-40 000 years ago. So, how could neanderthals be part of our ancestry if the Earth is, as you claim, 6000 years old?

[Genghis Skahn]

Take a DNA test and don't be surprised if it turns out that you have a Neanderthal link in your system. They were human beings.

It's debatable whether they were or not. Some consider them a subspecies of human Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, others think they were a distinct species of their own Homo neanderthalensis. Regardless of any of that, they were hominids who were closely related to us, and genetically similar enough to hybridize with us--that doesn't necessarily make them humans.

Ever since the discovery of the Neanderthal fossils, expert opinion has been divided as to whether Neanderthals should be considered a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis) or a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) relative to modern humans.^[26][27][28] Pääbo (2014) described such "taxonomic wars" as unresolveable in principle, "since there is no definition of species perfectly describing the case."^[5] The question depends on the definition of Homo sapiens as a chronospecies, which has also been in flux throughout the 20th century. Authorities preferring classification of Neanderthals as subspecies have introduced the subspecies name Homo sapiens sapiens for the anatomically modern Cro-Magnon population which lived in Europe at the same time as Neanderthals, while authorities preferring classification as separate species use Homo sapiens as equivalent to "anatomically modern humans".

For example, the fact that modern invasive coyotes close to my location are believed to have crossbred with wolves does not mean that wolves are coyotes or vice versa--it does mean that they are genetically similar enough to produce non-sterile offspring, as opposed to a Liger(Lion X Tiger) or a Mule(Horse X Donkey), which isn't that surprising given that coyotes belong to the same genus as wolves and dogs(who are a subspecies of wolf), but are NOT classified as wolves (Canis latrans= coyote, Canis lupus= wolf, Canis lupus familiaris= dog). You're totally incorrect if you believe that being able to hybridize with another species means that you automatically belong to the same species--in the case of human beings, regardless of your opinion on whether Neanderthals were human or not, species hybridization still occurred. The fact that they hybridized with humans does not make them necessarily human, as it's been clearly shown that different species within the same genus can still hybridize with one another.

Sar1n:

As DNA evidence proves, modern humans are cross between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthaliensis.

I mean, that's true for modern Europeans and Asians, but remember that Neanderthal fossils are basically non-existent in Africa and that most Sub-Saharan African populations don't contain Neanderthal DNA.

[conon394]

Well actually the Mule example is the best since it does not almost ever produce a non sterile offspring means "Animals breed according to their kind." is incorrect.

[basics]

As DNA evidence proves, modern humans are cross between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthaliensis.....

...who lived in a period roughly 400 000-40 000 years ago. So, how could neanderthals be part of our ancestry if the Earth is, as you claim, 6000 years old?

Sar1n,

Blinded by evolutionary silliness once more. No, they lived at just the same time as the rest of us humans and that no more than six thousand odd years ago.

Genghis Skahn,

They were human beings, end of story.

conon394,

The fact is that a mule comes about by the union of one horse type, horse, with another, donkey, means that they breed within their kind. Do you know of anyone who has bred with an ape to produce an ape-man and been successful ?

[conon394]

The fact is that a mule comes about by the union of one horse type, horse, with another, donkey, means that they breed within their kind. Do you know of anyone who has bred with an ape to produce an ape-man and been successful ?

On the Former. No it does not Mules or more or less unable to breed - donkeys and horses are different species. On the Latter = Stalin wanted to try. Mules are in some the vary transitinal you demand. A vary very tiny fraction can reproduce. They are neither hose no donkey.

Blinded by evolutionary silliness once more. No, they lived at just the same time as the rest of us humans and that no more than six thousand odd years ago.

Umm you keep ignoring evidence and you still have never established how you get to 6000 years. Even though I showed you can't have confidence in Biblical chronologies and you are necessarily ignoring all observable evidence to the contrary.

[basics]

conon394,

A mule is of the horse family or kind. It's not an independent species which if it was would be able to breed which it cannot do. They are no more transitional than you or me. As for the time factor for the life of the earth that comes by the study of God's word which some have done, the results being close enough to be taken literally. As you know I believe God's word simply because by experience it has worked well for me, my family and my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[conon394]

conon394,

A mule is of the horse family or kind. It's not an independent species which if it was would be able to breed which it cannot do. They are no more transitional than you or me. As for the time factor for the life of the earth that comes by the study of God's word which some have done, the results being close enough to be taken literally. As you know I believe God's word simply because by experience it has worked well for me, my family and my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I sorry for you lack of intellectual curiosity when it comes the biblical chronologies bu the 6000 year is not sustainable on its own. Its really odd seeing as the bible does not really do dates or care about time. You might consider the people who wrote were not all that interested in telling you the age of the world or that concerned about it.

[fkizz]

Still can't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct processes? No wonder that you are unable to understand the processes driving evolution and thus consider then arbitrary.

Yer folks are the ones who often pack the two together in your rethoric.

Evolution can co-exist with Intelligent design, for example, but there is hope and zeal that intelligent design won't be there, and the most likely scenario to disprove a Creator is the Abiogenesis scenario.

Evolution without Abiogenesis just tells that scriptures have some biases but that's all. Nothing that shakes the founding pillars. Evolution mixed with Abiogenesis is a bit stronger.

Isn't the name of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species"?

Origin =/= Evolution, for same reasons that Creation =/= Progress, but you guys keep believing it or pushing said rethoric.

By the way, we already have models of how could abiogenesis happen, although they're still theoretical, and empirical confirmation will take some time.

So you follow a theory that you openly admit to have no empirical confirmation, while condenmning the others of not being empirical enough.

[Muizer]

Why would you care about 'intelligent design' though? Give two options 'it was a natural process' and 'some supernatural being/force did it', why would anyone pick the latter? In the past when this was a choice of explanation, science has delivered answers and belief in the supernatural hasn't, so why assume it will be different for the origin of life?

[basics]

Why would you care about 'intelligent design' though? Give two options 'it was a natural process' and 'some supernatural being/force did it', why would anyone pick the latter? In the past when this was a choice of explanation, science has delivered answers and belief in the supernatural hasn't, so why assume it will be different for the origin of life?

Muizer,

Perhaps you've forgotten that life was supposed to have begun in the heavens with a big bang as some believe or by Intelligent Design as others have come to believe but both all point to what actually happened in the heavens by man who still searches the heavens for an answer. The reason some pick the latter is because that Intelligent Designer has changed their way of thinking since none were God lovers to begin with. So, for some six thousand odd years God has revealed Himself to men and women which science cannot come to terms with nor those who are still devoid of that knowledge even though they most likely have some knowledge of Him, why? Because God has placed all mankind as well as all creation under a curse because men refuse to believe and accept that He is God our Creator. Therefore man will accept anything that the evolutionist can conjure up to discredit God, even that He exists at all.

[fkizz]

Why would you care about 'intelligent design' though? Give two options 'it was a natural process' and 'some supernatural being/force did it', why would anyone pick the latter? In the past when this was a choice of explanation, science has delivered answers and belief in the supernatural hasn't, so why assume it will be different for the origin of life?

If you read history between the lines with a savvy filter, you will find plenty of cases where what was considered as supernatural fringe of yesterday becomes the scientific normal of today.

See the theory that everything is a vibration for example. String theory.

Esoteric circles from Ancient Egypt have been saying that for 5000+ years. Obviously dismissed by science as "supersticious and supernatural falsehood".

But now Science says the same and this is now presented as a big "discovery" of quantum physics. So the claim that "everything is a vibration" is considered true and a false supernatural supersticion at the same time. Double-think.

See Greek Fire from Byzantium. Dismissed as a sort of supernatural legend or supersticious war propaganda, same/similiar thing was achieved and called an "invention" when Napalm started being used as a weapon in Vietnam.

There is an elaborate sophistry and trickery game going on, on who has authority for "Truth" in this.

On Great Flood, the same groups who say the Great Flood is religious supersticion are the same ones who later will telll we have a real risk of being submersed in water in case the polar icebergs start to melt (climate change, greenhouse effect).

Do you see the level of double-think that's being pushed?

[conon394]

See Greek Fire from Byzantium. Dismissed as a sort of supernatural legend or supersticious war propaganda, same/similiar thing was achieved and called an "invention" when Napalm started being used as a weapon in Vietnam.

I don't recall Byzantine greek fire being dismissed by anyone?

On Great Flood, the same groups who say the Great Flood is religious supersticion are the same ones who later will telll we have a real risk of being submersed in water in case the polar icebergs start to melt (climate change, greenhouse effect).

Umm sorry if all the caps melt you get something like this:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

And of course a still geological event occurring over hundreds of years and not changing just because of a dove and rainbow. Nothing at all like an impossible biblical flood.[ Looks like the Holy land does kinda well interesting] You can't compare the two - one a story in the bible that has no basis in observable fact the the steady rise of sea level if the earth keeps warming but no epic flood over everything. Unless you live in Bangladesh or the Maldives or Florida.

String theory is a bit of a work in progress I really would like to tell how it was predated by esoteric Egyptian mysticism.


--------------

Because God has placed all mankind as well as all creation under a curse because men refuse to believe and accept that He is God our Creator.[

What I though sin was Adams' fault.

[Sar1n]

So you follow a theory that you openly admit to have no empirical confirmation, while condenmning the others of not being empirical enough.

There's a huge difference between scientific theory and arbitrary religious claim. The chief factor is that science rests on, among other things, on causality and logic. Thus it can produce reproducable, useful results. Religion, on the other hand, is dependant on claim of an element that is not subject to any logic, thus being inherently arbitrary and incapable of producing anything useful. Religion is a dead end.

Just to get things straight...so you believe that a massive social construct dedicated to finding the truth about universe that has improved life of every human alive, produced results that you use every day, I dare to say every second, is actually a huge scam that would have to involve milions of people, while one of hundreds of very similar, by their principle unproveable constructs, parasiting on human hopes and fears and used throughout history to enslave people, keep them in subjugation, start wars and endorse violence, is true? Because that's exactly how your posts here look.

[basics]

I don't recall Byzantine greek fire being dismissed by anyone?



Umm sorry if all the caps melt you get something like this:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/m...horeline-maps/

And of course a still geological event occurring over hundreds of years and not changing just because of a dove and rainbow. Nothing at all like an impossible biblical flood.[ Looks like the Holy land does kinda well interesting] You can't compare the two - one a story in the bible that has no basis in observable fact the the steady rise of sea level if the earth keeps warming but no epic flood over everything. Unless you live in Bangladesh or the Maldives or Florida.

String theory is a bit of a work in progress I really would like to tell how it was predated by esoteric Egyptian mysticism.


--------------



What I though sin was Adams' fault.

conon394,

It was! Adam we are told walked and talked with his Creator but when the chips came down and Eve persuaded him to eat the fruit thus defying God, God had no alternative but to deliver Divine justice on all those involved. It follows that their offspring would inherit what their nature had become and that is how it still is today.

[conon394]

It follows that their offspring would inherit what their nature had become and that is how it still is today.

It does on what rational or logical principle? If I betray my country and become a serical murder at the same time am caught and executed or imprisoned does it mean my children a re guilty as well? How offsping be guilty of something they had no part and no chance to make a choice.

God had no alternative but to deliver Divine justice on all those involved.

Odd he is supposedly the all powerful creator, why no choice. Seems to the bible would ascribe him the power to make any choice. Why not just waste the pair start over?

[sumskilz]

It's debatable whether they were or not. Some consider them a subspecies of human Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, others think they were a distinct species of their own Homo neanderthalensis. Regardless of any of that, they were hominids who were closely related to us, and genetically similar enough to hybridize with us--that doesn't necessarily make them humans.

For example, the fact that modern invasive coyotes close to my location are believed to have crossbred with wolves does not mean that wolves are coyotes or vice versa--it does mean that they are genetically similar enough to produce non-sterile offspring, as opposed to a Liger(Lion X Tiger) or a Mule(Horse X Donkey), which isn't that surprising given that coyotes belong to the same genus as wolves and dogs(who are a subspecies of wolf), but are NOT classified as wolves (Canis latrans= coyote, Canis lupus= wolf, Canis lupus familiaris= dog). You're totally incorrect if you believe that being able to hybridize with another species means that you automatically belong to the same species--in the case of human beings, regardless of your opinion on whether Neanderthals were human or not, species hybridization still occurred. The fact that they hybridized with humans does not make them necessarily human, as it's been clearly shown that different species within the same genus can still hybridize with one another.

Well, playing devil's advocate... or something, I'd have to say as much as there have been attempts to make it not the case, these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, at the boundaries anyway. Using fixation index, the standard measure of inter-population genetic distinctiveness, the distance of North American wolves to coyotes is Fst = 0.153, which just happens to be the same distance as between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans in our species, and quite a bit closer than between East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans.

Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf

Genetic Structure of Europeans: A View from the North–East

There was also an archaic population who contributed a little or a lot to sub-Saharan Africans, either it was a little and they were highly divergent from modern humans or it was a lot and they were only a little bit divergent from modern humans (less than Neanderthals and Denisovans). We can't answer that question without a sample of their (the archaics) unadmixed DNA, whoever they were.

For the sake of the debate, you could probably frame that new information anyway you like.