Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 23, 2014 at 1:15 am)snowtracks Wrote: darwin did the best he could using morphological features to outline the ascent of man. however, dna has now shown that the neanderthal man is not genetically related to human beings. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC164492/
so on those evolutionary ascent of man images, put a big X over the neanderthal.
the neanderthal genome DNA shows it a distinct species from human beings. DNA differences are noted in skin and hair, skull shape, rib cage (barrel shaped, neanderthal), metabolic function (nead. cold adapted), cognitive development. may have been some low level breeding as human migrated out-of-africa to europe and asia. distinct species interbreeding has been noted, for instance dolphins and pygmy killer whales resulting in wolphin offspring who are themselves fertile. interbreeding <> evolution.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
April 24, 2014 at 12:41 am (This post was last modified: April 24, 2014 at 12:47 am by Rampant.A.I..)
So in your view, the different breeds of dogs were bred by humans via what form of selection?
You're obviously not bothering to read the links to articles explaining what the "species" distinction actually means, so here's an explanation:
Quote:The Neanderthal DNA scattered around the modern human genome could total as much as 40 percent or more of the Neanderthal genome, the researchers say.
Quote:Hybrid males descended from both branches tend to be infertile, like mules. That’s because males have only one X chromosome, and if it happens to be one that impairs their fertility, then they may not reproduce.
Females have two X chromosomes, so even if one is impaired, if the other one is normal, it can rescue her ability to bear young.
“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo told Richard Harris of National Public Radio. Pääbo, the grand old man of ancient DNA based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, was an author of the other paper, which appeared in Nature. We might have inherited most of our Neanderthal genes through hybrid females, he said.
Fox News quoted Pääbo as saying Neanderthals must have been disappointed in their sons.
Another author, David Reich of Harvard Medical School, told reporters that we and Neanderthals “were at the edge of biological compatibility.”
“This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species,” Fred Spoor told New Scientist. Spoor is also at the Leipzig Max Planck but was not a part of the Neanderthal research.
Other scientists are more cautious about making so firm a declaration, but it’s clear that many lean toward that same conclusion, that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis but, rather, Homo neanderthalensis.
(April 19, 2014 at 7:39 pm)snowtracks Wrote: seriously, the point is biochemical information is genuine information not merely a scientific metaphor.
Damn, you're slow on the uptake. If you think that information exists as a non-conceptual thing that doesn't rely on minds to process it and determine the patterns in it, then please show us a unit of information? What is the measurement metric for information? How does one detect information? What does information do? How does it affect things?
You have a lot of ground to cover yet, Snowy. Nobody here has said that the word information isn't present in scientific records, nor that it has no use as a term, but when they say that a DNA molecule is "information rich," what is meant is that the DNA molecule contains numerous patterns and markers that we can conceptually show to result in a number of effects. Information isn't some intrinsic thing within DNA, it results from our ability to reliably determine what X, Y and Z chemical components of DNA will do in a given situation.
You're sitting here trying to characterize information as existing in DNA separate from human interaction with it, like coconut milk in a coconut, to which I say: Snowy, if you crack open a DNA molecule, "information" won't come spilling out, objectively extant and independent from our ability to read it.
your guy doesn't propound the mindless universe because it's against common sense. there was a reason we weren't listen to all stern lectures.
"Nagel rejects both reductionistic and emergent physical
explanations for consciousness, stating that [consciousness is the
most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies
only on the resources of physical science.]" http://wilmiers777.com/2013/05/23/explai...he-cosmos/
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
May 4, 2014 at 11:33 pm (This post was last modified: May 4, 2014 at 11:34 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
Quote:Unwilling to entertain a theistic explanation for consciousness, Nagel instead prefers the rather mystical view of panpsychism––the mind or soul are universal features in all things.
darwin tried his best, but sold you down the river.
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/dar...HHWuM.dpuf
you weren't supposed to take it seriously; didn't you know that? but he did have some redeeming value, he believed in the 'mind' existence.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
May 5, 2014 at 12:40 am (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 12:41 am by Rampant.A.I..)
Darwin was not a priest, or a figurehead. He was a product of his time, and the doubts he experienced based on the religious society he grew up in coupled with his reluctance to propose theories that would seem to indicate God was an unnecessary statement has no bearing on the current scientific understanding of evolution, or current theories of evolution.
Which, as we keep having to remind you, have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.
Given the times he lived in no doubt the pressures on Darwin not to go against religion were probably even greater than they've been on you, snowy. Fortunately he was a good deal brighter.
(May 5, 2014 at 12:23 am)snowtracks Wrote: darwin tried his best, but sold you down the river.
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/dar...HHWuM.dpuf
you weren't supposed to take it seriously; didn't you know that? but he did have some redeeming value, he believed in the 'mind' existence.
Okay, so you've just demonstrated that Darwin was wrong on that point. Do you have any other nothings you'd like to erroneously spew at us?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
May 5, 2014 at 3:04 am (This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 3:22 am by Rampant.A.I..)
(May 5, 2014 at 1:19 am)whateverist Wrote: Given the times he lived in no doubt the pressures on Darwin not to go against religion were probably even greater than they've been on you, snowy. Fortunately he was a good deal brighter.
The apologetic tone found in the origin of species speaks to this in particular.
Darwin himself didn't like the ideas he was proposing, but was driven to by logical application of empirical observation.
Darwin had no stake in denying God. He had everything to lose, and yet he followed the evidence, no matter how uncomfortable the conclusions.
I don't know that you're able to appreciate the repercussions of this. Darwin isn't particularly revered in science because he rejected
God. He's revered because like Galileo, he asked the difficult questions and followed them to their conclusions, regardless of what it would do to his personal life.
Because that's what science is. Empiricism leading to conclusions, no matter how inconvenient to the individual.
And after all this, you still seem to believe your mind is something special, when the opposite seems to be true.
We are, by our very nature, presupposed to think we are smarter than we actually are. Because we are conscious, consciousness seems to assume our intelligence is greater than what we actually possess.
We still have stone-age individuals like yourself who misguidedly think our dim understanding of reality is somehow indicative of some higher consciousness beyond the cogito.
You are not as smart as you think you are, and no amount of religious indoctrination will raise you above what you think you know.
(April 24, 2014 at 12:41 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: So in your view, the different breeds of dogs were bred by humans via what form of selection?
You're obviously not bothering to read the links to articles explaining what the "species" distinction actually means, so here's an explanation:
Quote:The Neanderthal DNA scattered around the modern human genome could total as much as 40 percent or more of the Neanderthal genome, the researchers say.
Quote:Hybrid males descended from both branches tend to be infertile, like mules. That’s because males have only one X chromosome, and if it happens to be one that impairs their fertility, then they may not reproduce.
Females have two X chromosomes, so even if one is impaired, if the other one is normal, it can rescue her ability to bear young.
“So this suggests that the male hybrids might not have been fertile, whereas the females might have been fully fertile,” Svante Pääbo told Richard Harris of National Public Radio. Pääbo, the grand old man of ancient DNA based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, was an author of the other paper, which appeared in Nature. We might have inherited most of our Neanderthal genes through hybrid females, he said.
Fox News quoted Pääbo as saying Neanderthals must have been disappointed in their sons.
Another author, David Reich of Harvard Medical School, told reporters that we and Neanderthals “were at the edge of biological compatibility.”
“This underlines that modern humans and Neanderthals are indeed different species,” Fred Spoor told New Scientist. Spoor is also at the Leipzig Max Planck but was not a part of the Neanderthal research.
Other scientists are more cautious about making so firm a declaration, but it’s clear that many lean toward that same conclusion, that Neanderthals were not Homo sapiens neanderthalensis but, rather, Homo neanderthalensis.
the dna and fossil records demonstrate that the non-human bipedal primates that proceeded human beings existed, had no measurable change, then went extinct and were replaced. it's the property of all life to die off but God recreates life to meet the changing conditions of the solar system. now in the case of human beings they are unique in that they were created with a spirit. this gives them abilities in the spiritual, rational, and relational realm which finds manifestation in displays of knowledge, goodness, justice, truthfulness, and like God are moral beings.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
