We know that nothing in this thread has impressed you, but we argue our points anyways. If you have an argument, give it for courtesies sake, just as we gave you ours.
We know that nothing in this thread has impressed you, but we argue our points anyways. If you have an argument, give it for courtesies sake, just as we gave you ours.
HombrePequeno,
I could never match the P&N members, for dodging points...I'm far too clumsy to match the twist and turns of the dance steps being choreographed here.
I could never match the P&N members, for dodging points...I'm far too clumsy to match the twist and turns of the dance steps being choreographed here.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Someone should explain endogenous retroviral insertions to this nut. I'd do it, but I'm too lazy to construct the argument.
So could you please enlighten us on how statements such as, "God exists", "God created mankind," and "Jesus was the son of God" involve "reasoning?"
It shouldn't be that hard for you. I mean you do think god and Neanderthals being the products of angels is logical and reasonable. So it shouldn't be that hard to tell us why that conclusion (which has no evidence whatsoever) is logical and reasonable.
Even if I were foolish enough to attempt to answer your "questions", it would require far more space than anyone is permitted to post, even in a long string of such posts. And the logic required to understand, would require far more interest than your attitude demonstrates. Therefore, I shall not waste the effort, the forum's resources, or your patience, because I am no Don Quixote. All that it would accomplish is described in Mathew 7:6.
Had you said the best logic, I might have agreed with you. But then you don't really understand the difference between science and logic. In any case, I have lost nothing.
bsobel,
I had not heard that you had been elected spokesman for all members of the forum. But, even if you had, the truth is not determined by popular opinion or a vote.
I had not heard that you had been elected spokesman for all members of the forum. But, even if you had, the truth is not determined by popular opinion or a vote.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Fuel for the fire
Because it's relevant to the .5% figure people toss around here as if it actually meant something significant.
Because it's relevant to the .5% figure people toss around here as if it actually meant something significant.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
On the contrary, it appears it is you that does not understand the difference between science and logic. Logic cannot tell us anything about external reality. Logic governs language and nothing more.
Blackllotus,
I don't think that anybody is disputing the fact that some fossils that we call neanderthal, and apparently are of a humanoid origin. The question is not whether they were primitive in lifestyle, because that was common in ancient times. The question is not whether they were akin to the apes, because nothing in the fossil record indicates that. The only question is about how long ago that they lived? I am open to the possibility that they lived at a time predating Adam, but that would not invalidate one iota of the Bible. But anyone from a time that ancient, would not be human within the usual definition of the word. A genetic variation would prove nothing. All of the discussions regarding the scientific dating methods, have nothing to do with protecting the validity of the Bible, because it needs no protection from anyone.
Why then even discuss scientific methods? Because of the fashion in which so many have used them to dispute the Bible, and because of the misconceptions that entails. How old is the Earth...6000 or millions of years? No one knows, because neither the Bible, nor science tells us in a fashion that is reliable. The study of fossils would have a great deal more potential benefit and interest, if this would be put in a true perspective. But, that does not seem to be possible, because everybody is so certain about what Christian intentionss are, that they won't listen to reason.
I don't think that anybody is disputing the fact that some fossils that we call neanderthal, and apparently are of a humanoid origin. The question is not whether they were primitive in lifestyle, because that was common in ancient times. The question is not whether they were akin to the apes, because nothing in the fossil record indicates that. The only question is about how long ago that they lived? I am open to the possibility that they lived at a time predating Adam, but that would not invalidate one iota of the Bible. But anyone from a time that ancient, would not be human within the usual definition of the word. A genetic variation would prove nothing. All of the discussions regarding the scientific dating methods, have nothing to do with protecting the validity of the Bible, because it needs no protection from anyone.
Why then even discuss scientific methods? Because of the fashion in which so many have used them to dispute the Bible, and because of the misconceptions that entails. How old is the Earth...6000 or millions of years? No one knows, because neither the Bible, nor science tells us in a fashion that is reliable. The study of fossils would have a great deal more potential benefit and interest, if this would be put in a true perspective. But, that does not seem to be possible, because everybody is so certain about what Christian intentionss are, that they won't listen to reason.
MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
Like you did right there?
Or how about there? Sorry for the off topic point, but blatant hypocrisy always gets a laugh out of me.
Anyway, rather the relying on a 4000 year old text that for all we know could have been written by a bunch of drunk elders after a hardcore birthday bash, let's look into science because this is what this topic is about.
99.5% genetic identicality means NOTHING if it isn't explained fully. See, the human genome is ~3.2 billion base pairs. However, most of this is non-protein-coding sequences, including simple-sequence repeats, LINEs, SINEs, pseudogenes, retroviruslike elements, and transposons (which actually change position through reverse transcripition, which adds an entire new level of complexity). If anyone wants more info on these, I'd be glad to give more. However, the point to take home is that only 1.2% of the human genome codes for protein. The arising incredible development and evolutionary advancement of humans comes from the fact that humans display much more advanced alternative splicing than other animals. Genes are coded into mRNA which are translated into proteins. However, each gene has coding portions, called exons, and noncoding portions, called introns. These introns are snipped out of the mRNA before it is translated. HOWEVER, different portions can be combined and omitted, as each gene has ~9 exons to it, this is alternative splicing. Hence, even though chimpanzees are very much like us, their lack of development is based on the fact that they do not display as complex a system of alternative splicing.
Now, using that data, to say that Neanderthals have a 99.5% identical genome means jack if the .5% is of the 1.2% coding region of humans: this would be a staggering 41.666% difference in the actual genome. However, if these figures regard only the protein coding region, this is still substantial because the difference could easily be the development of alternative splicing methods. I think the best way to summarize the nature of this finding is it is "a drop in the bucket," as said by Edward Rubin in the article. There is no way to make accurate conclusions from as little as they sequenced. The most that can be said is there is definite similarities. However, if the research team does produce the entire Neanderthal genome after two years, as they speculated in the article, then that would be something amazing. Using that Neanderthal genome, we would then have a way to directly analyze the development of humans and how they surpassed all other species.
Humor me. I'm a fairly patient person and I'll wade through a long post if it makes sense and has scientific evidence to back it up. It's not hard to understand something that is logical. Logical mean it makes perfect sense and is the sensible conclusion that should be reached given the evidence. It's only when things get extremely complex and has shaky evidence that things get hard to understand.
At least give me a taste of what the hell you are trying to say and the evidence for it. All you have posted so far has been fairly vague and when asked to explain you seem to dodge the question.
I never say anything to anyone simply for the purpose of appeasing them. However, I find the attitude within this post to be more understandable than your previous ones. Had I seen that at the beginning, I probably would have exerted myself somewhat more in an attempt to speak in a fashion that you might have found more useful.
But, regardless of how much I tried, I probably never would have been able to satisfy your standards of logic, because while I do understand them, you do not understand mine. Despite any appearances otherwise, I do think in a very objective fashion...more so than I speak. Given the time, I might have been able to cause you to see a greater degree of scope of my logic, but there is not enough time left to convey all of it to you. Especially considering the frequent detours injected into the conversation.
The lack of evidence to support my logic, is primarily a lack of perception on your and others part. That is not a put down, it's simply fact. Without an appreciation of the resources provided by this evidence, all that detailed conversation would accomplish is alot of smoke and mirrors. Smoke of spinning wheels, and mirror like in a carnival funhouse which distort reality. In reality, I can do nothing more than attempt to interest or provoke a person to reaccess their position, and to seek a new path which is hidden from them because of the light in which they view things.
If you are so set, that you are unable to understand anything beyond that which measured in a testtube, expressed in an equation, quantified in a formala, etc., then all that either of us could accomplish would be zero in anything improving anyone's understanding. I am vain eough to need a higher expectation of success, because words do not come easily for me. I do not post because I simply enjoy it. Even this short response required more than a little consideration. Perhaps that is part of the reason that you find it difficult to understand. Any apparent evasion is either due to this, or that I choose which battles to fight and in which sequence, which I believe improves the odds of winning the war. My war is not for world domination, but only to help a few people, but that is a bigger conflagration than you might imagine.
The neandrathals are right here in ATOT! Usually shoving atheism down everyone's throats at full folume.......
Most of what's accepted as "fact" is usually either "unproven science" or "reckless theory".
Keep analyzing the evidence folks, there's nothing even close to conclusive yet.
If you want to believe science - good! Do your research to see what's fact, and what's fiction-posing-as-fact. If you're simply spouting whatever you've been told, you're a brainless sheep - and that goes for athiest and religious, both.
It's reeeeeal easy to be duped when you're clueless.
Most of what's accepted as "fact" is usually either "unproven science" or "reckless theory".
Keep analyzing the evidence folks, there's nothing even close to conclusive yet.
If you want to believe science - good! Do your research to see what's fact, and what's fiction-posing-as-fact. If you're simply spouting whatever you've been told, you're a brainless sheep - and that goes for athiest and religious, both.
It's reeeeeal easy to be duped when you're clueless.
I am fine with people believing in things that aren't "measurable in a test tube." The problem I have is that you seem to be criticizing things which you don't have the greatest knowledge of. If you would like to do the research (at least further than religious websites) on these and come back and comment that would probably help.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,878
- 31,391
- 146
very true. our genome is about 89-92% homologous to that of mouse. and even 74% homologous to that of zebra fish.
once you begin to study individual genes, you will find even more similarities; sometimes close to 98% indentity b/w fish and human genes. although, in some cases where genes may appear virtually identical , there can also be variation in function among these genes. samoe genes may have extra coppies in one animal that divides function among those genes wherein the other organism achieves all of the sam functions through one gene's expression.
and yes, the majority of an organism's genome is composed of "junk" DNA. all this means though, is that this DNA doesn't code for any particular genes. what these long sequences prvode, however, are regions of activation, transcription (copying) start and stop areas, and other binding regions for co-factors that are necessary for genes to function. So, while "junk" DNA is never translated into protein (what makes anything...well, anything), it is essential in allowing that process to happen.
the neanderthal to human connection is pretty old news, really...this is some good, new data though that backs up years of theory and research
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter