|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/26/2012 : 21:36:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
Chimps and humans split 4 million years ago. |
If that were true than Ardi could possibly be a common ancestor. But it's only one study. If true, it will be interesting to see where they put Ardi and A afarensis.
This is probably the first interesting bit of news you have brought to this forum. At least to me, anyhow.
|
Thing about that study is it's from 2007. And not a peep since then. It was controversial when it came out. I'm interested because it changes a few things, and our early history is like a mystery story. Anyhow, it's not very promising that nothing more has been said about it in 5 years.
|
It does say the test was done for DNA. That is going a lot further than Ratcliffs shake and bake story of single to multicellularity in a lab. Follow the scientific methodology and apply critical thinking. Bud.
Works for me.  |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/26/2012 21:37:36 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 21:41:05 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
When you see stuff like chimpanzees beating bright university students in computer cognitive test. Chimpanzees having 48pairs of normal chromosomes unlike humans 46 with 2 fused. The 2 fused chromosomes in humans carrying genetic material for a host of diseases. Even a skeptic has to pause for thought and ask. Did our evolutionist get it right? |
None of that stuff is a problem for evolution.
justintime:
Add to that chimpanzees inter-species breeding with humans over 1.2 million years after divergence(Only DNA could prove that). They avoided those defective chromosomes and kept those smart genes to themselves. |
Trolling.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 21:44:21 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
It does say the test was done for DNA. That is going a lot further than Ratcliffs shake and bake story of single to multicellularity in a lab. Follow the scientific methodology and apply critical thinking. Bud.
Works for me. |
5 years is a long time to go without verification. But I don't know. In any case, the Ratcliff study is interesting and continuing. What works for you doesn't really interest me. And you wouldn't know critical thinking if you tripped over it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 00:54:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
It does say the test was done for DNA. That is going a lot further than Ratcliffs shake and bake story of single to multicellularity in a lab. Follow the scientific methodology and apply critical thinking. Bud.
Works for me. |
5 years is a long time to go without verification. But I don't know. In any case, the Ratcliff study is interesting and continuing. What works for you doesn't really interest me. And you wouldn't know critical thinking if you tripped over it.
|
You should know better Kil. There hasn't been much talk about Ardi either. DNA showing the split was closer to 4 million not 5-7 million is a big problem for evolutionist.
But evolution is a religion. Every new discovery is retrofitted to support Darwins evolution theory, and where it doesn't fit it is slotted with neo-Darwinism.
Chromosome 2 is another good example. Scientist knew about it around the 1970's. A pair was missing in humans. They did not know which pair, why and function of the missing pair. They never offered an explanation.
When in 1991 they found a fused pair they had to come up with an explanation, and they did. Mutation. Every thing that does not fit the theory is caused by mutation.
But times are a changing. Theist evolutionist and ID campers are biologist and not scientifically biased to hide behind the Darwins cast in stone theories. They are raising doubt and looking for alternate answers. That is progress.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 03:33:23 [Permalink]
|
How in the world is a 4 million year split a problem for evolution? We're talking about deep time. The whole job of figuring out exactly where the pieces go is a forensic exploration. Find me a Devonian bunny, and we'll talk about a "big problem for evolutionists." Same goes for chromosome 2. As the technology gets better, so do the explanations. What you think is a weakness is actually one of the strengths of science. The ability to take new information that helps to form a more accurate picture is not a problem. It's exactly how science is not a religion. It's a method. What's not going to happen anytime soon is an exact history of what happened with every gap filled. Again, we're talking about deep time. But we have Ardi, A afrarensis, A africanus, homo habilis, homo erectus, and us. All of them are in order, and if the 4 million year mark holds up for Ardi, they will still be in order from the more primitive to more modern, step by step. And that's pretty fucking cool. Nothing has been found where it just shouldn't be and the 4 million year mark for Ardi doesn't change that. And that's just human evolution. Nothing has been found where it shouldn't be. In all of the fossils we have and all of the dating that's been done, nothing is reversed. It's all as predicted. So again, go find me a Jurassic cow, and we'll talk about problems for evolution. Learning is not a problem. A change of thinking is not a problem. Something out of place would be a problem.
ID has not produced a single piece of evidence to support the hypothesis. ID proponents have only done what creationists have always done and that's to attack evolution. They don't have a fucking science to offer us. And theistic evolution doesn't conflict with naturalistic evolution accept in the mind of those biologists of faith. And what they do with the conflict is compartmentalize, because they know darn well that theism isn't science and it never will be. Genesis reads like comic book. So theistic scientists must pick and choose what parts of the bible to take literally. Science did that to them. It's Genesis that has fallen, especially with the theists who do science. Because they know it's bullcrap.
You're right. Times are changing. Your god is getting smaller and smaller. The ID guys are trying to force fit it into the reality of evolution because they don't know what else to do. Their backs are to the wall. And young Earth creationists are so out of touch with reality that all they can do is come up with stupid explanations for why the fossils are in the order that evolution predicts in the geological column and deny every transitional. They are like flat earthers. In total denial.
And by the way, justintime, you're a troll. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 07:55:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
How in the world is a 4 million year split a problem for evolution? We're talking about deep time. The whole job of figuring out exactly where the pieces go is a forensic exploration. Find me a Devonian bunny, and we'll talk about a "big problem for evolutionists." Same goes for chromosome 2. As the technology gets better, so do the explanations. What you think is a weakness is actually one of the strengths of science. The ability to take new information that helps to form a more accurate picture is not a problem. It's exactly how science is not a religion. It's a method. What's not going to happen anytime soon is an exact history of what happened with every gap filled. Again, we're talking about deep time. But we have Ardi, A afrarensis, A africanus, homo habilis, homo erectus, and us. All of them are in order, and if the 4 million year mark holds up for Ardi, they will still be in order from the more primitive to more modern, step by step. And that's pretty fucking cool. Nothing has been found where it just shouldn't be and the 4 million year mark for Ardi doesn't change that. And that's just human evolution. Nothing has been found where it shouldn't be. In all of the fossils we have and all of the dating that's been done, nothing is reversed. It's all as predicted. So again, go find me a Jurassic cow, and we'll talk about problems for evolution. Learning is not a problem. A change of thinking is not a problem. Something out of place would be a problem.
ID has not produced a single piece of evidence to support the hypothesis. ID proponents have only done what creationists have always done and that's to attack evolution. They don't have a fucking science to offer us. And theistic evolution doesn't conflict with naturalistic evolution accept in the mind of those biologists of faith. And what they do with the conflict is compartmentalize, because they know darn well that theism isn't science and it never will be. Genesis reads like comic book. So theistic scientists must pick and choose what parts of the bible to take literally. Science did that to them. It's Genesis that has fallen, especially with the theists who do science. Because they know it's bullcrap.
You're right. Times are changing. Your god is getting smaller and smaller. The ID guys are trying to force fit it into the reality of evolution because they don't know what else to do. Their backs are to the wall. And young Earth creationists are so out of touch with reality that all they can do is come up with stupid explanations for why the fossils are in the order that evolution predicts in the geological column and deny every transitional. They are like flat earthers. In total denial.
And by the way, justintime, you're a troll.
|
Why is it not a problem for evolution when their dating system misses by several million years. If they now have to shrink their divergence chart, or drastically correct them. The whole theory becomes junk.
Science is supposed to be precise not erroneous conjectures. The standards for proof are higher in science because it prides itself in its methodology. Test, verify, test. verify.... But we have been handed a ton of stuff that we now know was not tested, was not testable and what was tested go against what was earlier understood. That is not pure science ...that is voodoo science.
ID proponents are not trying to reinvent science or evolutionary theories. They are studying the same theories and explanations and without any scientific biases raising question challenging only the erroneous scientific conjectures. They still have to work within the guidelines of their profession as biologist, scientist or risk losing their license.
The fact they still remain respected in their field and organization is testimony they are credible. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 08:32:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Hey Kil, I am a contributor to your site not a consumer. |
You've been contributing lies and stupidity.| The 2 fused chromosomes in humans carrying genetic material for a host of diseases. |
See? That's a lie. Disease occurs when the normal genetic material on chromosome 2 is mutated. Just like with the genetic diseases linked to other chromosomes.| They just can't follow or blame Darwin for everything. Darwin wrote his stuff like 200 years ago... |
On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, or 153 years ago. You've made an error that's 1.7 milliDembskis in size.| DaveW is still stuck with singlecell, multicell 101's. and here I am being generous with my time. Keep well my friend. |
Except that you think that all humans should have all those chromosome 2 diseases all the time. Why don't we? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 08:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Hey Kil, I am a contributor to your site not a consumer. |
You've been contributing lies and stupidity.| The 2 fused chromosomes in humans carrying genetic material for a host of diseases. |
See? That's a lie. Disease occurs when the normal genetic material on chromosome 2 is mutated. Just like with the genetic diseases linked to other chromosomes.| They just can't follow or blame Darwin for everything. Darwin wrote his stuff like 200 years ago... |
On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, or 153 years ago. You've made an error that's 1.7 milliDembskis in size.| DaveW is still stuck with singlecell, multicell 101's. and here I am being generous with my time. Keep well my friend. |
Except that you think that all humans should have all those chromosome 2 diseases all the time. Why don't we?
|
Natural Selection screwed up. Natural selection gave the defective genetic material to humans packaged is Chromosome 2. Chimpanzees don't have their equivalent chromosomes fused nor do they suffere from the same genetic disorders associated Down's, trisomy, Autism etc. etc.
I looked for the type of skin rash you suffer from....seems like you have a few more defective genes than the average person. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 08:46:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Natural Selection screwed up. Natural selection gave the defective genetic material to humans packaged is Chromosome 2. |
How so? A lot of those diseases will prevent or inhibit reproduction, so they get selected out in a single generation.| Chimpanzees don't have their equivalent chromosomes fused nor do they suffere from the same genetic disorders associated Down's, trisomy, Autism etc. etc. |
Provide evidence that that statement is true. I've asked you three times already.| I looked for the type of skin rash you suffer from....seems like you have a few more defective genes than the average person. |
And another irrelevant personal attack from justintime the hypocrite.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 11:19:51 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Why is it not a problem for evolution when their dating system misses by several million years. If they now have to shrink their divergence chart, or drastically correct them. The whole theory becomes junk. |
No. The order is still correct. And it's not new that molecular biologists who only look at DNA and paleontologists who look at morphological difference and geological dating have clashed. The winner doesn't matter in terms of did we have a common ancestor and when, as long as it's before the majority of the Australopithecines. What they are doing, as I said above is sorting out the dates. So explain, when no one else is saying it, why this debate over dates would make the theory junk?
This is exactly how science works. And it will be sorted out. I'm now tending toward the more recent date, but that doesn't falsify evolution or the evolution of humans and chimps. It moves the dates around an some species might be placed in different lines, but more generally, nothing has changed. The fossils still move from more primitive to more modern as would be expected in both lines.
Placing confidence limits on the molecular age of the human–chimpanzee divergence
New Statistical Model Moves Human Evolution Back Three Million Years
Reviewing the clock, and phylogenomics
justintime:
Science is supposed to be precise not erroneous conjectures. The standards for proof are higher in science because it prides itself in its methodology. Test, verify, test. verify.... But we have been handed a ton of stuff that we now know was not tested, was not testable and what was tested go against what was earlier understood. That is not pure science ...that is voodoo science. |
Oh rubbish. Show me a better method. What is happening is what has always happened in sorting out this sort of thing. A hypothesis might turn out to be mistaken, but they are based on the best evidence at the time and subject to change. The better the tools we have the more accurate picture we have.
The theory of evolution is in no danger because there is a debate about dates and which dating methods render the most accurate results. That too will sort itself out. What you think science is "supposed to be" is irrelevant. It just demonstrates once again that you don't know much about science. You should have seen the Johanson Leaky wars over Lucy! The debates among scientists are common and necessary to the process. You know, it's the skepticism part of the sci method. At one time there was a big debate about whether birds evolved from dinasaurs or lizards. That debate is pretty much settled and never posed a danger to evolution. It's only creationists, and those who don't understand how science works that insist that it all be neat and tidy. Some areas of science lends itself to more tidy answers. But here we are talking about deep time with fossil and DNA evidence, and it has to be sorted out. As I said back there somewhere, it's a bit like a figuring out how a mystery novel will end. And really, that's part of the fun.
justintime:
They are studying the same theories and explanations and without any scientific biases raising question challenging only the erroneous scientific conjectures. |
Horseshit. They are trying to figure out how they can bring god to the party. Since they haven't provided a single bit of evidence to support their hypothesis, they are doing what you are doing which is to invent weaknesses and then try to exploit them. In short, they are a pack of liars or extremely deluded. It's nothing new for creationists to try and find the flaws in evolution, having no science of their own. As though what we don't know defaults to "God did it." And so far they have all gone down in flames, from a scientific perspective. But with sciency language, they have managed to convince a few of those who are mostly ignorant of how science works.
justintime:
The fact they still remain respected in their field and organization is testimony they are credible. |
Behe is considered a joke by the scientific community. They hardly ever publish and have been rejected by all but 1% of evolutionary biologists. If that's your idea of respect, what can I say?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:14:39 [Permalink]
|
You can vent as much as you want. This cherry picking is not consistent with science. A more unified theory I am construction is not that much of horseshit. In fact the link you provided which I was not aware of actually supports the framework I have presented and that was even before reading it. Thanks Kil.
1. From your third link. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/divergence/ardi-and-the-clock-2009.html
Most of them place the date much younger -- an average of less than four and a half-million years ago.
Reading the review, one cannot help but notice the low age estimates that keep coming up again and again. Most of them are under 4.5 million years. Patterson and colleagues had one of the highest recent estimates, putting the speciation at less than 5.4 million years. That's because they assume a smaller effective size in the ancestral lineages -- pushing the date higher. The more that demography fiddles with the assortment of ancestral genes before a population divergence, the younger the resulting estimate of divergence date will be.
work to explain why the human X chromosome is even more similar to chimpanzees than the autosomes.
You could propose a massive slowdown in mutations in the chuman lineage
I think it's more parsimonious to imagine a widespread population of chumans, a large-bodied, basically Ardipithecus-like primate, structured into regional populations in much the way that today's chimpanzees and gorillas are. This population was numerous and stable, and it gave rise over time to many more arboreally adapted branches -- first the gorillas and later the chimpanzees. The remainders, as it were, became the hominins. |
What I am saying is given the research I have been doing to develop a consistent/unified theory..The last link hints I am not alone in thinking this way.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/27/2012 12:16:11 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You can vent as much as you want. This cherry picking is not consistent with science. A more unified theory I am construction is not that much of horseshit. In fact the link you provided which I was not aware of actually supports the framework I have presented and that was even before reading it. Thanks Kil.
1. From your third link. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/divergence/ardi-and-the-clock-2009.html
Most of them place the date much younger -- an average of less than four and a half-million years ago.
Reading the review, one cannot help but notice the low age estimates that keep coming up again and again. Most of them are under 4.5 million years. Patterson and colleagues had one of the highest recent estimates, putting the speciation at less than 5.4 million years. That's because they assume a smaller effective size in the ancestral lineages -- pushing the date higher. The more that demography fiddles with the assortment of ancestral genes before a population divergence, the younger the resulting estimate of divergence date will be.
work to explain why the human X chromosome is even more similar to chimpanzees than the autosomes.
You could propose a massive slowdown in mutations in the chuman lineage
I think it's more parsimonious to imagine a widespread population of chumans, a large-bodied, basically Ardipithecus-like primate, structured into regional populations in much the way that today's chimpanzees and gorillas are. This population was numerous and stable, and it gave rise over time to many more arboreally adapted branches -- first the gorillas and later the chimpanzees. The remainders, as it were, became the hominins. |
What I am saying is given the research I have been doing to develop a consistent/unified theory..The last link hints I am not alone in thinking this way.
|
And again, it might be that Ardi is the common ancestor. So how does this change pose a problem for evolution? I keep asking.
Also, I am aware that any materials I provide to you will be combed for something like the above as though it supports your argument that the date is a problem for evolution. Did the author think so? You're just doing what you do. Taking the part you like (I gave you the whole thing) and making an attempt to use it to support your case. So does that make you smarter than the scientist who wrote it? Because he isn't making that case.
And what cherry picking? Yours? Because you are the one who cherry picked from the article. I presented several articles that show that there is a debate, because there is.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:30:43 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
What I am saying is given the research I have been doing to develop a consistent/unified theory.. |
Wow! So you you have a lot of projects going. The study of skeptics and a consistent/unified theory of human evolution. Let me know when you have passed peer review.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 12:39:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The fact they still remain respected in their field and organization is testimony they are credible. |
The kind of respect Behe gets from his own colleagues:The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific. They respect his right to speak. They clearly don't respect what he says. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 13:17:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
What I am saying is given the research I have been doing to develop a consistent/unified theory.. |
Wow! So you you have a lot of projects going. The study of skeptics and a consistent/unified theory of human evolution. Let me know when you have passed peer review.
|
About the cherry picking. Those were your sources. Some canceled each other out because of their speculative nature. The operative word here is unified. My unified theory. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Missing Universe Museum
