Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: teclado
Yes, dmw16, I do believe that we on a different logic basis, thus not allowing for an agreement to be made.

I have just seen too many people accept scientific theory as fact, only to see that theory later rejected. Yes, scientific theory is changed, updated. That is why I do not put too much faith into it. For all of you who have been generalizing my statements into "Haha this guy thinks the world is flat," cut it out, seriously. I'm talking about science that tries to explain the origins of life, the origins of the universe, or having to do with anything that is several thousand years older than we are. I'm sorry, but science can't do that, as much as some of us would like it to. I'm not so quick to accept that a 38,000...no 45,000...no wait...100 million year old....no wait, we don't know how old it is...neanderthal has a 0.5% genetic difference from us. Perhaps this alleged neanderthal is not a neanderthal at all. I doubt the very basis of this conclusion.

This is sort of a side note here, but it ties into my reasoning for rejection of what I would call religious science(that which tries to explain the origins of life and the universe). I can prove very easily and very scientifically that the very existence of the universe does not make sense. Before the universe, according to science, there was some really super dense matter packed into a little ball that eventually exploded and generated everything. Ok, that's fine, I might believe it if there was an explanation to the origins of the original matter. "You moron, it has already been proven that the universe is expanding. See that little evil box you are using to type this, throw it out because you can't understand it." you say? Ok, perhaps the universe is expanding, even though that theory may change. It still does not explain the origin of that initial matter. So, in order to derive equations for the expansion of the universe, you need to start with zero so as to start with the initial lack of matter. Well, any math operation performed on zero will yield zero. So in order for this to work, you have to jerry-rig the math a bit and feed it some false non-zero, preferably positive, number. This is what religious science does, kiddies. Our very existence defies religious science. So, to accept religious science, I would have to disregard some science, as many scientists do.

This is my logic basis.

Science may answer how, and religion may answer why. There always seems to be a "vs" mentality around here. At some level I have a bit of sympathy for people who argue that science is not the Gospel (pun intended). The utility of science is that it presses forward in a direction that illuminates that which can be known. I myself don't believe that science can know all, because we are finite beings. As such there is no reason to believe we can comprehend the totality of all that exists, merely that which is comprehendible. Some who profess to be religious do pretty much the same thing. Religion has all the answers. It doesn't. You can't find any references to atoms in the bible and how they interact, yet they are. If God created the universe, why is it not possible that God made the conditions possible? No credible scientist can say anything about that nor can anyone say that the process is comprehensible by human minds even if it were of completely unguided means. At some point people need to say "I just don't know" and get on with it. As far as the genomic sequencing goes, it is what it is.

We just like to have tempests in teapots.

 

[techs]

So what? Bush and a Chimp are 99.99 percent identical.

Pic

 

[teclado]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Science may answer how, and religion may answer why. There always seems to be a "vs" mentality around here. At some level I have a bit of sympathy for people who argue that science is not the Gospel (pun intended). The utility of science is that it presses forward in a direction that illuminates that which can be known. I myself don't believe that science can know all, because we are finite beings. As such there is no reason to believe we can comprehend the totality of all that exists, merely that which is comprehendible. Some who profess to be religious do pretty much the same thing. Religion has all the answers. It doesn't. You can't find any references to atoms in the bible and how they interact, yet they are. If God created the universe, why is it not possible that God made the conditions possible? No credible scientist can say anything about that nor can anyone say that the process is comprehensible by human minds even if it were of completely unguided means. At some point people need to say "I just don't know" and get on with it. As far as the genomic sequencing goes, it is what it is.

We just like to have tempests in teapots.

That was a very respectful post, more than I deserved. I appreciate that. :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: teclado
It still does not explain the origin of that initial matter. So, in order to derive equations for the expansion of the universe, you need to start with zero so as to start with the initial lack of matter.

This is my logic basis.

But you are making a flawed assumption: You are implicitly assuming that time exists independent of matter.

What if time is a product of matter and/or of the movement of matter? What if time creaks to a standstill as as matter becomes infinitely dense and motion ceases?

Without time, one has no "first," no "before." Those concepts have meaning only when a timeline exists. The question, "Where did the universe come from?" becomes meaningless in a context where time doesn't exist.

The most honest thing anyone can say about the primoridal universe is that we don't yet understand it. The correct response to incomprehension isn't the shrill cry, "God must be the explanation!" That's just the "God of the gaps:"

Wikipedia

The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, and is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled with acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

 

[GoPackGo]

That .5 percent must be like the difference between the sun and the moon.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: teclado
I'm talking about science that tries to explain the origins of life, the origins of the universe, or having to do with anything that is several thousand years older than we are. I'm sorry, but science can't do that, as much as some of us would like it to.

So, do you widely reject plate tectonics? Those have been going on for years, and it really wasn't until the 80's before the theory was widely adapted. We are talking in terms of millions of years here. Are you saying that the plates don't move?
You might need to do a little research into the Big Bang and its assorted origin theories. The matter was always there, because thats where everything came from. Before the matter, there was nothing, because the matter is everything.

Originally posted by: teclado
This is what religious science does, kiddies. Our very existence defies religious science. So, to accept religious science, I would have to disregard some science, as many scientists do.

Scientists like Kent Hovind for instance?

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
That .5 percent must be like the difference between the sun and the moon.

Of course it is. I doubt many people will suggest that, practically speaking, a chimpanzee is ".5%" off of being a human. They are nowhere near as developed as our species. What it shows is how closely related our species our, and that we share a common ancestor (relatively) recently.

As for the origin of the Universe, look for a more conclusive answer this century, as we gain the ability to reproduce conditions at the very birth of the Universe. At the moment we can only explain down to a very short time after the "Big Bang", before that and we don't have the physics to figure it out yet.

 

[GZeus]

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Science may answer how, and religion may answer why. There always seems to be a "vs" mentality around here. At some level I have a bit of sympathy for people who argue that science is not the Gospel (pun intended). The utility of science is that it presses forward in a direction that illuminates that which can be known. I myself don't believe that science can know all, because we are finite beings. As such there is no reason to believe we can comprehend the totality of all that exists, merely that which is comprehendible. Some who profess to be religious do pretty much the same thing. Religion has all the answers. It doesn't. You can't find any references to atoms in the bible and how they interact, yet they are. If God created the universe, why is it not possible that God made the conditions possible? No credible scientist can say anything about that nor can anyone say that the process is comprehensible by human minds even if it were of completely unguided means. At some point people need to say "I just don't know" and get on with it. As far as the genomic sequencing goes, it is what it is.

We just like to have tempests in teapots.

That was a very respectful post, more than I deserved. I appreciate that. :thumbsup:

'Hayabusa Rider' - QFT

'teclado' - QFR (Respect)

A and a :thumbsup: for each. Peace.

 

[Seekermeister]

sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Lizards and dogs are identical. 100% of normal ones have 4 legs.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: GZeus
'Hayabusa Rider' - QFT

'teclado' - QFR (Respect)

A and a :thumbsup: for each. Peace.

I believe that's incorrect use of cookies!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

What you see here is the result of Trolling. Don't be upset when you get the result you seek.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: teclado
That was a very respectful post, more than I deserved. I appreciate that. :thumbsup:

You now have my respect, teclado.

 

[KoopaTroopa]

they go back and forth on this neanderthal stuff every few years

old link

even older

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

Oh, and you're a bastion of rational thinking? Pffft, ha! Hilarious. You come in here trumpeting "neanderthals are a hoax," ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary, and pointing to your ignorant Christian web sites as "proof."

Well played, sir. :thumbsdown:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

Again, you are confusing science with the products of science. Science is a method. It is ALL logic and "reason."

Religion, on the other hand, is a collection of beliefs. It has nothing to do with logic and reason.

There's nothing wrong with religion, but don't label it as anything other than what it is.

 

[imported_wicka]

...every other study done before this has shown no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in humans whatsoever. So I call BS.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: wicka
...every other study done before this has shown no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in humans whatsoever. So I call BS.

You are confused.

 

[getbush]

let's just make 2 stickies in off topic

sticky #1 title: "Science >>> Religion, GO!"

sticky #2 title: "Religion >>> Science, GO!"

and then we can just say, keep iit in the sticky!

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: wicka
...every other study done before this has shown no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in humans whatsoever. So I call BS.

Wrong.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

Again, you are confusing science with the products of science. Science is a method. It is ALL logic and "reason."

Religion, on the other hand, is a collection of beliefs. It has nothing to do with logic and reason.

There's nothing wrong with religion, but don't label it as anything other than what it is.

It you wanted me to believe in your underestanding of the word "logic", you wouldn't simply continue repeating yourself. But then, you are a product of your "scientific" education, so I guess that is to be expected. The post that you responded to has nothing to do with any religion, except that of scientific zealots.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: wicka
...every other study done before this has shown no evidence of Neanderthal DNA in humans whatsoever. So I call BS.

We share something like 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees so it doesn't seem unlikely that we would share 99.5% of our DNA with Neandertals. Just remember that our DNA is billions of sequences long so 0.5% can make a huge difference.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

Again, you are confusing science with the products of science. Science is a method. It is ALL logic and "reason."

Religion, on the other hand, is a collection of beliefs. It has nothing to do with logic and reason.

There's nothing wrong with religion, but don't label it as anything other than what it is.

It you wanted me to believe in your underestanding of the word "logic", you wouldn't simply continue repeating yourself. But then, you are a product of your "scientific" education, so I guess that is to be expected. The post that you responded to has nothing to do with any religion, except that of scientific zealots.

Hahaha.

Yes, I am the product of a "scientific" education. And I took a lot of "mathematics" and "symbolic logic" and "physics" and "engineering." And I received a "PhD" from a "university." And since I demand an orderly connection between "theory", "prediction", "experiment", and "data" - ad infinitum - I must be a zealot. Only a zealot would reject as baseless statements of "truth" about the physical universe having no foundation in "observable phenomena".

Wow, placing quotation marks around terms certainly is devastating. You have reduced me to a quivering mass of protoplasm.

Only a know-nothing such as yourself could refer to a person's "understanding of the word 'logic'" when that person is using it in its everyday, reasonable sense. Only you could twist the meaning of the word so completely as to imagine that the concept of "reasoning" - central to any definition of "logic" - has even the remotest relevance to religion.

Yes, please enlighten us on how statements such as, "God exists", "God created mankind," and "Jesus was the son of God" involve "reasoning." Explain how "logic" (hahahaha) enters into any discussion of God.

 

[Seekermeister]

Yes, please enlighten us on how statements such as, "God exists", "God created mankind," and "Jesus was the son of God" involve "reasoning." Explain how "logic" (hahahaha) enters into any discussion of God.

Enlighten you? This is not Mission Impossible. You are so illuminated with yourself, how could anyone expect to impress anything on you. Contrary to what you might think, this is not a contest of personalities, nor does the one with the biggest ego become the winner.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
sandorski,

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

Whatever reason that science has, is totally lost by the time that it reaches the scientific zealots on this forum.

Oh, and you're a bastion of rational thinking? Pffft, ha! Hilarious. You come in here trumpeting "neanderthals are a hoax," ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary, and pointing to your ignorant Christian web sites as "proof."

Well played, sir. :thumbsdown:

Not to mention blatantly ignoring posts that explain away his argument