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 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm (This post was last modified: April 1, 2014 at 5:41 pm by Chas.)
(March 29, 2014 at 10:26 pm)professor Wrote: To the OP's question, there was sufficient genetic variation left in Noah's sons (from Adam and Eve) and their wives to account for what we call "Races" today.
I might note that after all this time - there is much less variation possible now- unless the races mix back again.
You have a bizarre misunderstanding of genetics. Go read a science book and quit embarrassing yourself.
(March 31, 2014 at 9:22 am)ManMachine Wrote:
(March 23, 2014 at 7:41 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: How do you account for the different races in humanity if your god created only 1 pair of humans in the beginning? wouldnt that require some evolution even if you dont agree with the theory completely?
saying god made it that way doesnt count, that is an assertion and you have to back it up anyway.
Ideas like 'race' and 'species' are a mirage. Any decent Darwinist knows that all species are afloat on a genetic tide. Subtle and imperceptible, the impermanence of the genetic drift is the machinery of evolution.
The notion of species is a convenience, an anchor that approximates the real world into our rigid conceptual constructs.
When you can determine the exact nature of 'species' you can have your cake and eat it.
Same argument for the god-botherers too.
MM
For sexually reproducing organisms, 'species' has a clear definition.
That definition only works when comparing populations that exist at the same time.
(March 31, 2014 at 2:09 pm)alpha male Wrote:
(March 31, 2014 at 1:40 pm)xr34p3rx Wrote: such as?
Such as that we share a common ancestor with apes.
Then you do not understand the evidence.
(March 31, 2014 at 6:46 pm)alpha male Wrote:
(March 31, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Case in point john. I've gone back through this thread and read every single post you've made. Not once, when challenged about why you disagree with the inferences drawn from things like (for example) fossil records or common ancestors do you give an answer.
This is an argument from ignorance. My opponents don't get to make bare assertions and claim that they stand unless I refute them. I've politely asked for them to support certain claims, and they haven't been able to. I know that they can't, for example, support the claim that fossils and genetics all point to the same tree. I can support my position, but I shouldn't have to - they're making the claim, they should support it.
Quote:Kevin Peterson grabs a pen and starts to scribble an evolutionary tree on the paper tablecloth of a bar in Hanover, New Hampshire. Drawing upside down to make it easier for me to see, he maps out the standard phylogenetic tale for placental mammals. First, Peterson scratches a line leading to elephants, which branched away from the rest of the placentals around 90 million years ago. Then came dogs, followed by primates (including humans) and finally rodents — all within a frenetic 20 million years. This family tree is backed up by reams of genomic and morphological data, and is well accepted by the palaeontological community. Yet, says Peterson, the tree is all wrong.
A molecular palaeobiologist at nearby Dartmouth College, Peterson has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents.
“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.
Quote:"With this study, we learned two major things," said Sushma Reddy, another lead author and Bucksbaum Postdoctoral Fellow at The Field Museum. "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."
These kinds of findings are common. When someone says something like "fossils and genetics all lead to the same thing," it's a giveaway that they get their info from youtube, and are basically just evolution cheerleaders.
How does that support your argument? Also, that is not a scientific paper.
The details of the order of speciation in no way denies speciation. And the microRNA thesis is not yet widely accepted.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
