The "Eve gene" - another creationist fail

[tas8831]

Genesis and science states:

God created the heavens
and the Earth
and the Earth was cloud based, oceanic planet
and the skies opened
and the continents rose
and life emerged from the land
then the from sea
and finally man.

People who stated the earth was the center or that every event was caused
directly by God are wrong - on a bible basis. But genetics has shown there
really are a Jewish people, and even one of the tribes relating to Moses's
brother Aaron has come to light.

Cool story.

"Eve gene"?

 

[tas8831]

Your first mistake was reading Carl Sagan.

Right...

As for me, I have never heard of this Eve Gene, but it seems to me looking for an obscure theory 30 years ago from a man who was agnostic on all matters of religion is likely more of a fail than anything you might accuse of Creationism.

Cool well poisoning attempt! It fails, miserably, but still cool.

Suppose for a second that it is true, that there's some sort of genetic marker separating humans from the general population.

It isn't true. Creationists claiming great scientific knowledge are, in my experience, nearly always embellishing to the point of fabrication or are lying outright.
There is no "Eve gene", yet creationists claiming decades of debate and study claim otherwise.

Okay. So what? The general opinion of atheists on Christians is that all of them are weird fringe types who don't believe in gravity or evolution.

No, not all Christians, just creationist/right-wing evangelical types. whom, I have been lead to believe, even mainstream Christians see as a sort of embarrassment.

I think you'll be shocked then to find out that most of them do in fact live in the same scientific world as you, grew up learning biology and physics, and actually have no problem with the idea of evolution.

See above.

What they do have a problem with is Darwin's bleak godless view of reality, and his ideas that life is about the fittest surviving (uhhh yeah, when you have that mindset in business as a boss, all of your employees become stressed that you'll decide they're not "fit" enough, and are unable to be calm enough to do their jobs)

Ah - so despite your implication that you are one of these Christians that "live in the same scientific world as you, grew up learning biology and physics, and actually have no problem with the idea of evolution" you do not actually understand what is meant by "fittest" in evolutionary biology.

All I needed to know, really.

. But that humans or other animals evolve? No, there's not that many who dispute you on that.

The disputers, however, never seem capable of providing any kind of legitimate evidence to the contrary. It is almost as if there is none.

Which is why this is not "score one for me against Creationism" but rather just being fixated on something that doesn't even matter.

This forum is called "Evolution v. Creationism.' You know that, yes?

I am 'fixated' on the overwhelming ignorance, bolstered by unwarranted confidence, that is characteristic of so many - in my experience, nearly all - creationists. People who will almost boast about their being a lay person, then declare confidently that all scientists are wrong. Or the people who will claim that they have "studied" or "debated" evolution for 30 or 40 years, yet are entirely unfamiliar with basic scientific terminology.

I don't need to seek to 'score' anything - the points pile up all by themselves on forums like this.

That humans evolve is a fact, people in Korea have a gene that inhibits sweat, allowing them to adapt to cold climates.

So Koreans don't sweat? How do they dissipate excess body heat? You know it gets very hot in Korea, too?

Are you also going to tell me about the 'extra tendon' that Africans have that allows them to jump high?

We didn't evolve from monkeys though, nor did birds evolve from dinosaurs.

The evidence says you are wrong.

And given what you have written thus far, I will take the evidence that I am familiar with over, unsubstantiated weird assertions.

Humans are a specific type of primate, there no missing links. Dinosaurs are lizards, related to to the iguana not birds. If they even exist. Such bones all seemed to appear in convenient places, have mix and match bones some of which are fish bones, have a skeletal structure that is not compatible with gravity, and none were discovered before Darwin's publications.

Are you a fan of Chopra?
It seems like it.

From this we can conclude that while evolutionary adaptation is a thing, while major evolutionary change is probably not.

And yet you don't know about the "Eve gene."

Shocking...

 

[tas8831]

Not at all... as i said, in our circles, we don't subscribe to that position. Makes me wonder what circles you hang around with.

The circles on this forum.

 

[tas8831]

Just a born fugative. The everlasting pursuit of happiness is a sign of home calling. The makers mark is a string of genetic heritage that is unbreakable. Thanks for posting this.

Ummm.... ok?

 

[tas8831]

I think when science definitively finds truth, we should listen.

Until then, we do what?

 

[Jose Fly]

We didn't evolve from monkeys though, nor did birds evolve from dinosaurs. Humans are a specific type of primate, there no missing links. Dinosaurs are lizards, related to to the iguana not birds. If they even exist. Such bones all seemed to appear in convenient places, have mix and match bones some of which are fish bones, have a skeletal structure that is not compatible with gravity, and none were discovered before Darwin's publications. From this we can conclude that while evolutionary adaptation is a thing, while major evolutionary change is probably not.

I'm curious....what compelled you to post the above?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your first mistake was reading Carl Sagan. As for me, I have never heard of this Eve Gene, but it seems to me looking for an obscure theory 30 years ago from a man who was agnostic on all matters of religion is likely more of a fail than anything you might accuse of Creationism.

Suppose for a second that it is true, that there's some sort of genetic marker separating humans from the general population. Okay. So what? The general opinion of atheists on Christians is that all of them are weird fringe types who don't believe in gravity or evolution. I think you'll be shocked then to find out that most of them do in fact live in the same scientific world as you, grew up learning biology and physics, and actually have no problem with the idea of evolution. What they do have a problem with is Darwin's bleak godless view of reality, and his ideas that life is about the fittest surviving (uhhh yeah, when you have that mindset in business as a boss, all of your employees become stressed that you'll decide they're not "fit" enough, and are unable to be calm enough to do their jobs). But that humans or other animals evolve? No, there's not that many who dispute you on that. Which is why this is not "score one for me against Creationism" but rather just being fixated on something that doesn't even matter. That humans evolve is a fact, people in Korea have a gene that inhibits sweat, allowing them to adapt to cold climates. Likewise, in areas near the equator, ppl are more resistant to heat. It's also irrelevant to the question of whether or not the world was created. It isn't Creationism or Evolution because these two aren't even rivals. One is a cosmological event, the other is merely biological, and they aren't even incompatible.

We didn't evolve from monkeys though, nor did birds evolve from dinosaurs. Humans are a specific type of primate, there no missing links. Dinosaurs are lizards, related to to the iguana not birds. If they even exist. Such bones all seemed to appear in convenient places, have mix and match bones some of which are fish bones, have a skeletal structure that is not compatible with gravity, and none were discovered before Darwin's publications. From this we can conclude that while evolutionary adaptation is a thing, while major evolutionary change is probably not.

Wow! You have sure have all of this science stuff down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Until then, we do what?

Since scientific findings can never be proven, we wait. And keep on waiting. Waiting some more. Still waiting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious....what compelled you to post the above?

I've seen this before. It looks to me like a love, a knowledge of and an understanding of science that comes from a lifetime of intense, informal study.

It is a very real thing. Lots of creationists have this.

 

[Audie]

Just a born fugative. The everlasting pursuit of happiness is a sign of home calling. The makers mark is a string of genetic heritage that is unbreakable. Thanks for posting this.

I think you are confused
makers mark - Google Search

 

[Audie]

Funny you say that - for about the first 10 years I taught anatomy, when we did the skeletal system I would ask the class if men and women have the same number of ribs. In most classes, I would get at least one student who said they did not.

lets hear the rest of the story! did you have them count?
then what?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Funny you say that - for about the first 10 years I taught anatomy, when we did the skeletal system I would ask the class if men and women have the same number of ribs. In most classes, I would get at least one student who said they did not.

Some people where I grew up think that snakes can take their tail in their mouths and form a hoop for speedy travel. Stumps are good for curing warts. Christians are guaranteed wealth. There is no end to the crazy notions that come out of culture that people come to think are true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think when science definitively finds truth, we should listen.

What does this mean? The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science. Would you consider that a truth? Do you consider less well supported theories to be scientific truths?

In as much as I haven't read/found any definitive proof that such a gene exists, I don't subscribe to it. I tend to talk more about things that are important to live life today.

Thanks for asking.

The eve gene is meaningless. It is a transient construct made by people that do not understand science enough to recognize or admit their own confusion.

It is derived from a confusion over mitochondrial Eve and what that is and means.

 

[Audie]

What does this mean? The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science. Would you consider that a truth? Do you consider less well supported theories to be scientific truths?
The eve gene is meaningless. It is a transient construct made by people that do not understand science enough to recognize or admit their own confusion.

It is derived from a confusion over mitochondrial Eve and what that is and means.

When a person starts in on "definitive proof" and "truth"
you know they are incapable of actually discussing
science.
And not interested in learning anything either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When a person starts in on "definitive proof" and "truth"
you know they are incapable of actually discussing
science.
And not interested in learning anything either.

Of course we hold out hope that the door is actually open, but often the prediction, based on the usage, that it is not, holds up.

 

[Kenny]

Until then, we do what?

Ask, seek and knock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask, seek and knock.

And if no one is at home?

 

[Kenny]

And if no one is at home?

Wait... they will back soon enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait... they will back soon enough.

Or perhaps you are just talking to yourself.

 

[Kenny]

Or perhaps you are just talking to yourself.

Or you are at the wrong door?