NationStates

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:I honestly don't know. I just believe in the Catholic Bible as the most accurate religious view of the world, but I recognise that even so there are significant faults in it and I believe that Science, to the best of it's ability, can not only disprove the flaws in it, but also mend them. The Bible is like a jar that has been smashed into the tiniest pieces, and Science to me is like duct tape or superglue. Because they are so tiny, we'll probably never fully fix it, but with duct tape and superglue we can fix it to the best of our ability.

Why not just build a new jar rather than repair one that, when it was not broken, still worked poorly anyways?

Because I really like that jar. Sure, it wasn't great, but it did hold some flowers that I greatly liked.

In a real world concept, my Mum raised me as a Christian until she converted to Islam. I attended a Catholic Primary School. I like the idea that there is a God and a Heaven. I almost became Atheist, but I just couldn't leave it all behind. I couldn't deny the existence of God. I was a Catholic Agnostic a few years ago, but then I had a second epiphany and now I'm a theist again. I just can't leave faith behind, faith to me important, a belief in at least something is important, no matter what religion it is. I find secular humanism to be an acceptable belief. At least you're believing in something; you believe in social justice and ethics, something that most religions, whether it's Abrahamic, Eastern or otherwise something else, advocates.

I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum? Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

I'm not a christian creationist but theistic evolution and the theory of kinds seems to be as plausible as humans and protozoa having a coomon ancestor.

Microevolution ie the adaption of new traits to make new subspecies just doesnt cut it as justifying macroevolution afterall the liger shows that lions and tigers are adaptions of the same 'kind', even homo saps, neanderthals and denisovans appear to be merely interfertile sub species rather than new species...

Warda wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.

And yet...

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[7][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent included at least one male, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[33]

So...who didn't read the page?

Warda wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.

Holy fucking shit.
If you had bothered to read it at all, you would have discovered that she is merely a common ancestor. What's special about her is that she had a daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter and so forth persisting even today. She had parents, she might have had siblings, she probably had first cousins. She was one of thousands of humans alive at that time.

Warda wrote:no, its real because mtdna proved it.

This is what happens when we educate someone beyond their intelligence. They skim an article on Wikipedia and assume they know the whole story.

Cetacea wrote:I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

That isn't evolution.

Cetacea wrote:2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum? Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

Have fun.

Divair wrote:Right. Tallyho.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Warda wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.

actually her parents would also have a direct line to all modern humans, and her siblings could as well.

Warda wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:it also proved that one individual was not alone, nor were they the origin of all living humans.

your grandmother is the most recent common ancestor between you and all your cousins, that does not mean she did not have an ancestor or siblings.
do you even know what most recent common ancestor means?

yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.

She's just a MRCA.

Cetacea wrote:I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum? Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

I'm not a christian creationist but theistic evolution and the theory of kinds seems to be as plausible as humans and protozoa having a coomon ancestor.

Microevolution ie the adaption of new traits to make new subspecies just doesnt cut it as justifying macroevolution afterall the liger shows that lions and tigers are adaptions of the same 'kind', even homo saps, neanderthals and denisovans appear to be merely interfertile sub species rather than new species...

1...........Miller Urey?
2. Genetics, AFAIK.
3. Macroevolution is microevolution over a longer time

Athylon Prime wrote:

Warda wrote:no, its real because mtdna proved it.

This is what happens when we educate someone beyond their intelligence. They skim an article on Wikipedia and assume they know the whole story.

no this is what happens when a group of people are bored and try to assert their inteligence over a group of people who would never be active in this thread and therefore a person with a brain decides to try to prove their arrogance. no, really, i know im wrong im just try to make you look like the elitist you are.

Wolfmanne wrote:

Warda wrote:yeah i do. if you bothered to read it said that she was the first human to have a line to living humans and that her parents or sibiling failed to produced. so all current humans are related to her.

She's just a MRCA.

Actually, she's only a CA.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:She's just a MRCA.

Actually, she's only a CA.

Oh? My Science teacher was wrong? That's what she said to me.

Wolfmanne wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Why not just build a new jar rather than repair one that, when it was not broken, still worked poorly anyways?

Because I really like that jar. Sure, it wasn't great, but it did hold some flowers that I greatly liked.

In a real world concept, my Mum raised me as a Christian until she converted to Islam. I attended a Catholic Primary School. I like the idea that there is a God and a Heaven. I almost became Atheist, but I just couldn't leave it all behind. I couldn't deny the existence of God. I was a Catholic Agnostic a few years ago, but then I had a second epiphany and now I'm a theist again. I just can't leave faith behind, faith to me important, a belief in at least something is important, no matter what religion it is. I find secular humanism to be an acceptable belief. At least you're believing in something; you believe in social justice and ethics, something that most religions, whether it's Abrahamic, Eastern or otherwise something else, advocates.

So appeal to tradition, appeal to emotion/special pleading, anecdotal and... possibly personal incredulity.

Cetacea wrote:I've not read the rest of the thread but I will pose two critiques

1 Abiogenesis -how did the random assemblage of primodial chemicals spark into life?

It wasn't immediate. Cell didn't just pop out of nowhere after a random lightning strike.

Think of it as a gradual "evolution" of organic molecules (nucleotides, for example) turning into RNA, DNA, and proteins.

Cetacea wrote:2 What evidence is that for evolution of new genera from previous genera let alone new order/phylum? Ie evolution posits that cats and dogs have a common ancestor as do humans and dogs, far enough back humans and mushrooms are related, but where is that evidence?

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I'll let one trained in it answer this one.

Cetacea wrote:I'm not a christian creationist but theistic evolution and the theory of kinds seems to be as plausible as humans and protozoa having a coomon ancestor.

Microevolution ie the adaption of new traits to make new subspecies just doesnt cut it as justifying macroevolution afterall the liger shows that lions and tigers are adaptions of the same 'kind', even homo saps, neanderthals and denisovans appear to be merely interfertile sub species rather than new species...

From my understanding, there's no such thing as macro and micro evolution. Only evolution.

Wolfmanne wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Actually, she's only a CA.

Oh? My Science teacher was wrong? That's what she said to me.

MR means most recent. The MRCA lived mere thousands of years ago.

Warda wrote:

Athylon Prime wrote:This is what happens when we educate someone beyond their intelligence. They skim an article on Wikipedia and assume they know the whole story.

no this is what happens when a group of people are bored and try to assert their inteligence over a group of people who would never be active in this thread and therefore a person with a brain decides to try to prove their arrogance. no, really, i know im wrong im just try to make you look like the elitist you are.

So... you're messing with us? Or are you backtracking?

Chishimotata wrote:

Warda wrote:no this is what happens when a group of people are bored and try to assert their inteligence over a group of people who would never be active in this thread and therefore a person with a brain decides to try to prove their arrogance. no, really, i know im wrong im just try to make you look like the elitist you are.

So... you're messing with us? Or are you backtracking?

1st one. if you wanted to make a thread dicussing evolution thats one thing, having a thread that basically calls out anyone who disagrees as stupid is a bit rude.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:Because I really like that jar. Sure, it wasn't great, but it did hold some flowers that I greatly liked.

In a real world concept, my Mum raised me as a Christian until she converted to Islam. I attended a Catholic Primary School. I like the idea that there is a God and a Heaven. I almost became Atheist, but I just couldn't leave it all behind. I couldn't deny the existence of God. I was a Catholic Agnostic a few years ago, but then I had a second epiphany and now I'm a theist again. I just can't leave faith behind, faith to me important, a belief in at least something is important, no matter what religion it is. I find secular humanism to be an acceptable belief. At least you're believing in something; you believe in social justice and ethics, something that most religions, whether it's Abrahamic, Eastern or otherwise something else, advocates.

So appeal to tradition, appeal to emotion/special pleading, anecdotal and... possibly personal incredulity.

I guess that's one way of putting it.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:Oh? My Science teacher was wrong? That's what she said to me.

MR means most recent. The MRCA lived mere thousands of years ago.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Another thing learnt today.

Warda wrote:

Chishimotata wrote:So... you're messing with us? Or are you backtracking?

1st one. if you wanted to make a thread dicussing evolution thats one thing, having a thread that basically calls out anyone who disagrees as stupid is a bit rude.

If you seriously think correcting you when you make a wrong claim is calling you stupid, why are you on this forum?

Warda wrote:no this is what happens when a group of people are bored and try to assert their inteligence over a group of people who would never be active in this thread and therefore a person with a brain decides to try to prove their arrogance. no, really, i know im wrong im just try to make you look like the elitist you are.

So, I'm an elitist for starting a thread out of pure curiosity? That is most definitely a non sequitur. You also just admitted to trolling, which if you were trying to prove a point with it, you failed miserably. Now, just because you're grammar hurts me, let's spell it together. Intelligence.
Intelligence
Intelligence
And no, the irony was not lost on me.

Mavorpen wrote:

Warda wrote:1st one. if you wanted to make a thread dicussing evolution thats one thing, having a thread that basically calls out anyone who disagrees as stupid is a bit rude.

If you seriously think correcting you when you make a wrong claim is calling you stupid, why are you on this forum?

i dont rember saying that was i was refering to, i meant the orginal post and thread title.

Athylon Prime wrote:

Warda wrote:no this is what happens when a group of people are bored and try to assert their inteligence over a group of people who would never be active in this thread and therefore a person with a brain decides to try to prove their arrogance. no, really, i know im wrong im just try to make you look like the elitist you are.

So, I'm an elitist for starting a thread out of pure curiosity? That is most definitely a non sequitur. You also just admitted to trolling, which if you were trying to prove a point with it, you failed miserably. Now, just because you're grammar hurts me, let's spell it together. Intelligence.
Intelligence
Intelligence
And no, the irony was not lost on me.

i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

Warda wrote:i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

I wonder what Warda will type next.

Mavorpen wrote:

Warda wrote:i dont remeber grammar being on any iq test ive ever taken.

You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

Warda wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:You think IQ tests measure intelligence? That's hilarious.

no, tell me why test developed by specialist in fields on that matter and that have been revewied by others to approve of them or disaprove dont do what they are made to do.

Could you please use proper spelling and grammar so that what you're trying to convey is at least somewhat understandable?