Darwin's theory

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

She isn't called Mitochondrial Eve for nothing!!!
... everybody is descended from her.
... and all men are descended from Y-Chromosome Adam as well.:eek::pac:

You really know sweet fcuk all about this subject. Case in point, not all men are, or rather were descended from "Y-Chromosome Adam". Quite the number of male lines have died out in the interim. EG Mungo man in Australia. His DNA showed different matrilineal and patrilineal lines from both X Eve and Y Adam. Neandertals had a very different set of DNA "Adams" and "Eves". Homo heidelbergensis had even more. Yet you claim they were humans like us? Like I said earlier how many Adams and Eves did this God of yours create?

More, if your tale is true, then why did your same God leave all sorts of evidence that completely upturns his "word"? He doesn't sound too clued in. Well you wouldn't expect some Bronze age farmers with pretensions of cultural grandeur to be particularly clued in. It just seems daft to follow that and make it reality. Well unless you believe as some of the more fevered medieval types did that fossils are "devil stones". Even they knew such things made their dogma shaky.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Wood and metal have nothing to do with information ... so your point is mute.:pac:

My point is going over your head more like :pac:

To clarify, my point is you're taking 2 arbitrarily related things and inferring a connection that isn't there. CFSI sounds fancy and sciency and all that, but it's really just a meaningless term. Like MCMF.

Ziphius

J C wrote: »

Wood and metal have nothing to do with information ... so your point is mute.:pac:

I wonder if mute points evolved from moot points...

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The only thing that would change about my 'worldview' if current evolutionary theory was proven wrong would be the fact that there's suddenly a whole lot of new research to be done in my field. Definitely not a bad thing from my point of view.

... so nothing would change for you ... only your determination to prove that 'it did itself' would increase.

... and ye criticize people of Faith about being 'fixed in their ideas' ... or trying to make the evidence fit with their ideas.:eek:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... so nothing would change for you ... only your determination to prove that 'it did itself' would increase.

... and ye criticize people of Faith about being 'fixed in their ideas' ... or trying to make the evidence fit with their ideas.:eek:

No, what I'm saying is if overwhelming evidence came out that evolutionary theory as we know it was incorrect, then studying the alternative instead would be interesting. I wouldn't frantically try to prove something that the evidence has turned against. I'll leave that to the creationists :pac:

J C

Ziphius wrote: »

I wonder if mute points evolved from moot points...

When it come to comparing the physical (wood and metal) with the virtual (information) ... the point is both mute and moot!!!:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is if overwhelming evidence came out that evolutionary theory as we know it was incorrect, then studying the alternative instead would be interesting. I wouldn't frantically try to prove something that the evidence has turned against. I'll leave that to the creationists :pac:

... but there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory as we know it is incorrect.
... and all I have seen is denial and obfuscation ... and no acceptance or study of the alternative.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

When it come to comparing the physical (wood and metal) with the virtual (information) ... the point is both mute and moot!!!:)

The thing is though, I wasn't comparing them. I was using them as an analogy to show that just because two things have a couple of vaguely similar properties doesn't mean they have a similar source.

I assume you know that and are just being willfully ignorant because you don't want to think about it though.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... but there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory as we know it is incorrect.
... and all I have seen is denial and obfuscation ... and no acceptance or study of the alternative.

I'll ask you, for the 89,657th time on boards, to produce this evidence.

AngryHippie

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'll ask you, for the 89,657th time on boards, to produce this evidence.

Inconveniently, the man in the sky is in possession of the evidence:rolleyes:

kingchess

do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??

PopePalpatine

AngryHippie wrote: »

Inconveniently, the man in the sky is in possession of the evidence:rolleyes:

Actually, it's that he has this evidence, but he won't show it to us maybe because there's a secret cabal of "Darwinists" with a ninja army that suppresses "creation scientists" by killing them off...or some mad bullshit like that.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

... but there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory as we know it is incorrect.
... and all I have seen is denial and obfuscation ... and no acceptance or study of the alternative.

And the age of the earth , don't forget that .
The dating methods which are inadequate and which use circular logic .

And how god made the earth to look old and how god made dinosaurs just to kill them .

And how the bible which is a non changing constant source of tales and stories is more accurate than science which is constantly changing and adapting .

And how god allows innocent babies to get HIV , cancer etc .

And the fact that the bible is to be taken literally and that people can survive inside whales for 3 days .

Actually if this Jesus guy could turn my water into wine i would be well impressed .

The bible is hypocritical . No it isn't .

EoghanIRL

kingchess wrote: »

do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??

Gods plan duh.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

You really know sweet fcuk all about this subject. Case in point, not all men are, or rather were descended from "Y-Chromosome Adam".

... but here's the thing ... they are.
Quote :-
"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is an informal name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree)."

Wibbs wrote: »

Quite the number of male lines have died out in the interim. EG Mungo man in Australia. His DNA showed different matrilineal and patrilineal lines from both X Eve and Y Adam. Neandertals had a very different set of DNA "Adams" and "Eves". Homo heidelbergensis had even more. Yet you claim they were humans like us? Like I said earlier how many Adams and Eves did this God of yours create?

... it was mitochondrial DNA inheritance the case of Eve
Quote:-
"Though this evidence does not disprove the idea of Neanderthal and modern human admixture, it shows that moderns and Neanderthals did not have more genetic similarities during the Pleistocene that were subsequently lost. If interbreeding did occur, Neanderthal mtDNA sequences could have been lost due to genetic drift. ":cool:

Wibbs wrote: »

More, if your tale is true, then why did your same God leave all sorts of evidence that completely upturns his "word"? He doesn't sound too clued in. Well you wouldn't expect some Bronze age farmers with pretensions of cultural grandeur to be particularly clued in. It just seems daft to follow that and make it reality. Well unless you believe as some of the more fevered medieval types did that fossils are "devil stones". Even they knew such things made their dogma shaky.

What are you talking about?:eek:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... they are.
Quote :-
"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is an informal name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree)."

Even if that is the case, it doesn't have the implications that you'd like it to.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??

... their worldview is so strong that the refuse to believe that God (or even an unknown intelligence) created life ... even when the idea of it 'creating itself' is both logically and evidentially unsupported.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... their worldview is so strong that the refuse to believe that God (or even an unknown intelligence) created life ... even when the idea of it 'creating itself' is both logically and evidentially unsupported.:)

What about the Christians who accept evolutionary biology

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... they are.
Quote :-
"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is an informal name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree)."

Don't stop there with that quote, JC.

Quote continues:

However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual.

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries also have descendants alive today...

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Even if that is the case, it doesn't have the implications that you'd like it to.

Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Yes, the facts are everyone has genetic material from one man.

Your interpretation of that fact (that it verifies biblical myths) is unwarranted.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'll ask you, for the 89,657th time on boards, to produce this evidence.

Any chance of that happening btw?

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Is it not that it means, that while decended from them, we are also descended from their contemporaries and antecedents ? So there is nothing particlarly special about mitochondrial Eve or Y Chrome Adam ?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, the following proves the biblical account is wrong (i.e. too recent, by far)

The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years.[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Don't stop there with that quote, JC.

Quote continues:

However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual.

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries also have descendants alive today...

... you can hang onto that, if you want ... the evidence is clear that we are all descended from one man and one man only.
... of course, we are descended from many other different men down our family trees ... just like your father and my father were different people ... but none of these was Adam ... and nobody is arguing that they were.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, the facts are everyone has genetic material from one man.

Your interpretation of that fact (that it verifies biblical myths) is unwarranted.

... it certainly is in line with the Biblical account ... of one man from which the entire Human Race is descended.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

... their worldview is so strong that the refuse to believe that God (or even an unknown intelligence) created life ... even when the idea of it 'creating itself' is both logically and evidentially unsupported.:)

and they can see the logic of darwin theory:because the facts,the science leads them to that conclusion,and no scientist would come up with creation theory because no facts exist to lead them down that road:rolleyes:(unless their world view is based on the bible:rolleyes::rolleyes::p)

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

... it certainly is in line with the Biblical account ... of one man from which the entire Human Race is descended.

Just not on the timescale? So more like man was created 150000 to 200000 years ago ?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... it certainly is in line with the Biblical account ... of one man from which the entire Human Race is descended.

Unfortunately, it's not in line with the biblical idea that the world is only 10,000 years old. Just because it is in line with the biblical account doesn't mean the biblical account is correct either. The fact my carpet is blue is in line with my account that unicorns painted it that colour 10 seconds ago. That doesn't make my account accurate.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'll ask you, for the 89,657th time on boards, to produce this evidence.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about the Christians who accept evolutionary biology

J C, ignoring the difficult questions since 2005 :pac: