Spin-off Thread

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: conjur
Question #2 was:

How long have homo sapiens been on earth?


That would be ~200,000 years with the mitochondrial Eve having lived about 150,000 years ago (she wasn't the first homo sapiens)
This date is based on "molecular clock" assumptions which are based on evolutionary beliefs regarding when certain events occured.
No, they're based upon mutations seen in DNA (mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome) as studied and corroborrated by many different scientists.

It's all based on ASSUMPTIONS of the rate of mutational substitutions.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And those assumptions have been corroborrated via other forms of evidence (archaelogical digs, for example)


Go read:

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (by Spencer Wells)
The Seven Daughters of Eve (by Brian Sykes)
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: maluckey
Three minutes ago for all three. I like the nuber three. All these pesky doubters were put here to test my faith.

It goes to show how bad our "science" is ;)that it can hit a comet and take pictures of the event.

Exactly!!!

Don't you find it a simply AMAZING fact that this incredible scientific community that has extended the average human lifespan by 50% in the past 100 years, that designs, builds, and controls spacecraft; that creates ever more amazing technology; that is generally pushing back the boundaries of our ignorance at an ever-accelerating speed - that this self-same scientific community just happens to be completely CLUELESS when it comes to scientific issues that contradict the Bible?

Obviously, the scientific community doesn't walk in lockstep when it comes to origins.

Many eminent scientists reject the theory that all life originated from a single cell organism which formed randomly from inanimate materials.

This is a fraudulent statement. The proportion of "eminent scientists" who reject evolution is about the same proportion of "eminent historians" who reject the holocaust.

You are selectively choosing a tiny, non-representative group of fringe scientists and claiming that their views are part of the mainstream. That's a gross misrepresentation, and can be called "lying" by any standard.

Now answer the question: What do YOU believe the age the earth is?

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Let's make this simpler:

Rip: Do you have a belief, not based on scientific certainty, as to the age of the Earth?

If the anwer is "yes", please tell us what that belief is.
 

cwgannon

Member
May 24, 2005
112
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
The entire dating process does not make sense. If man had been around for 200,000 years there would be more evidence of that. If Man as we know had existed 100,000 years ago they should have long ago overpopulated the earth. You listen to a couple of lectures and then you throw logic and common sense out of the window! It just is not logical!!!!!

One word: redundancy.

Look it up.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: piasabird
The entire dating process does not make sense. If man had been around for 200,000 years there would be more evidence of that. If Man as we know had existed 100,000 years ago they should have long ago overpopulated the earth. You listen to a couple of lectures and then you throw logic and common sense out of the window! It just is not logical!!!!!

According to theory, the Toba super-volcano going off about 70,000 years ago reduced the size of the homo sapien population to @ 10,000. DNA studies also back up that contention.

Also, until man became more communal and civilized, birth rates weren't as consistent as they are now, children were often lucky to live past the age of 5 and humans rarely lived past the age of 40, so that needs to be taken into consideration as well.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: Riprorin

Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?
You're still an idiot, he's sayng humans, as in "homo"'s has been living for that long. I don't know if it's true, but it sounds about right. He's not saying homo sapiens. Even the subtext in the link supports what i'm saying here.

Don't give Rip credit for having "misunderstood". Rip understands exactly what he's doing. He's yet again intentionally misrepresenting what he knows to be the true meaning of the quoted passage.

Rip is a classic sociopath: He will perpetrate any lie in his attempts to convince you he's right.

You can't "debate" someone like this, as they have no interest other viewpoints.

Do what I plan on doing after tonight: Ignore him utterly. He's despicable, his opinions mean nothing (and are almost certainly dishonest in any event), and any truth you send his way will be libeled.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: Riprorin

Really?

There appears to be a range of 150,000 - 1,800,000 yrs regarding the age of homosapiens.

Age of Homo sapiens

How did you arrive at ~200,000 yrs?
You're still an idiot, he's sayng humans, as in "homo"'s has been living for that long. I don't know if it's true, but it sounds about right. He's not saying homo sapiens. Even the subtext in the link supports what i'm saying here.

Don't give Rip credit for having "misunderstood". Rip understands exactly what he's doing. He's yet again intentionally misrepresenting what he knows to be the true meaning of the quoted passage.

Rip is a classic sociopath: He will perpetrate any lie in his attempts to convince you he's right.

You can't "debate" someone like this, as they have no interest other viewpoints.

Do what I plan on doing after tonight: Ignore him utterly. He's despicable, his opinions mean nothing (and are almost certainly dishonest in any event), and any truth you send his way will be libeled.

he is just a simple troll not worthy of feeding