Argumentum ad populum

nPeace said:

I understand, you can only assume



I have been hearing what scientists believe, for the past six or seven years now.
It is only then I learned that there was a belief system in the scientific community.
Before, I never paid much mind to science, really.

So, you merely make claims, and call them facts, and when asked to show that they are, you send me to watch a video, which is as old as the hills.
By the way, I saw the video - probably a year or two ago.

Do we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing"?
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content
...30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. In this respect the MSY differs radically from the remainder of the genome, where 2% of chimpanzee euchromatic sequence lacks an homologous, alignable counterpart in humans, and vice versa. We conclude that, since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, sequence gain and loss have been far more concentrated in the MSY than in the balance of the genome. Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement: whole-chromosome dot-plot comparison of chimpanzee and human MSYs reveals dramatic differences in gross structure, which contrasts starkly with chromosome 21, the only other chromosome comprehensively mapped and sequenced in both species. Contrary to the decelerating decay theory, the chimpanzee and human MSYs differ dramatically in sequence structure.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study

I suppose though, by "missing", you are thinking "Ah, we now know why humans only have 46, when they should really have 48."
So we are related to tobacco, and potato. How swell. So long antelope.

Mice seem to be beating the chimps.
Humans and Mice Together at Last
In short, the human and mouse genomes are remarkably similar not only in the structure of their chromosomes but also at the level of DNA sequence.

Almost any gene in humans is going to be present in mice and vice versa, the team concludes.

The Celera team, led by Richard J. Mural, identified 11,822 short segments of mouse DNA that correspond to just one region of the human genome. The order and orientation of DNA in these segments is nearly identical in both genomes for 99 percent of the segments.


Poor Picard.

Click to expand...

Misirepresenting actual papers and citing creationist opinion pieces from blogs filled with more of such dishonest, is not a proper way to argue.

Talking to, gives me this mental picture

It Aint Necessarily So said:

If we have mutation in one individual, and it mates with a 'normal' individual, please explain what the odds are that the offspring will possess the new trait. I can wait.

Click to expand...

I'm going to say zero if the mutation occurs in a somatic cell, and not much more if it occurs in one of millions of spermatozoa. If it occurs in an ovum that will be ovulated and possibly fertilized, the chances go up considerably.

Click to expand...

Not bad - if an individual expresses a 'new' trait (which it would have received via mutation in either sperm or egg), then there is roughly a 50% chance (with some caveats) that it will be passed on to any 1 offspring. If it is passed on to an offspring, they have have ~50% odds of passing it on to their offspring, and so on.
If they are part of a large population, the spread of a new allele throughout the population can take a while, especially if it is not very advantageous (i'e., neutral).

So clad's notion that speciation occurs in an instant and is 'spread' in less than 2 generations is just asinine.

cladking said:

And now they don't even care about the data either!

Click to expand...

Show us your "experiments" that led you to conclude that individuals grow a "broccas area".

Can't wait!

nPeace said:

A programmer writes a computer program that creates or generates objects in an environment with randomness applied. The program works as it's designed to - produce an object... with random features, due to the environment never being the same. Like a snowflake.

Click to expand...

No wonder the world has been so messed up since day 6. God's been too busy creating individual snowflakes, trillions and trillions and trillions of them.

Do you also believe that God individually creates every single molecule of water?

My emphases in the following.

nPeace said:

I have been hearing what scientists believe, for the past six or seven years now.
It is only then I learned that there was a belief system in the scientific community.
Before, I never paid much mind to science, really.

Click to expand...

That's understandable if you are 16. If you are closer to 56, then one can understand your ignorance of science. If you were 50 before you started to learn about science...

cladking said:

I'm sure you're right but I'm far more interested in their disagreements.

Click to expand...

What disagreements?
Are you referring to the disagreements among Biblical Scholars as to whether or not the Exodus ever happened?
Are you referring to the disagreements among Christians as to whether or not the Great Flood ever happened?

Thief said:

I have no religion

Click to expand...

Then what is your basis for believing that all gods are really just one god? Do you include Atlas and Olokun and Abenaki in that grouping or only the popular well-known gods?

cladking said:

Indeed, we are so different than Ptahhotep who is credited with writing these lines that I believe we are really a different species altogether.

ANCIENT EGYPT : The Wisdom of Ptahhotep

Click to expand...

What lines lead you to believe that "we are really a different species altogether"?


BTW, did you ever post your definition of species?

ecco said:

Then what is your basis for believing that all gods are really just one god? Do you include Atlas and Olokun and Abenaki in that grouping or only the popular well-known gods?

Click to expand...

there is only One Almighty

there is hierarchy......it is written...
Ye ARE gods

but only One Almighty

ecco said:

What lines lead you to believe that "we are really a different species altogether"?

Click to expand...

The Maxims of Ptahhotep were probably originally written in modern language. In those days modern language speakers were still able to understand many of the principles of ancient science and understand the formatting of knowledge. I believe that once contact with Ancient Language speakers was lost (for most people around 2000 BC) that all this knowledge and understanding were lost quickly.

There is nothing inherently "confused" about modern language and virtually anything can be communicated but there is no underlying logic, science, or semblance to reality. Since Ptahhotep's wisdom was rooted in AL it was lost as the last of the AL speakers died out around the 12th century BC. After this modern language speakers were entirely on our own.

ecco said:

Then what is your basis for believing that all gods are really just one god? Do you include Atlas and Olokun and Abenaki in that grouping or only the popular well-known gods?

Click to expand...

Thief said:

there is only One Almighty

there is hierarchy......it is written...
Ye ARE gods

but only One Almighty

Click to expand...

You choose to use the word "almighty". OK. If there is only one almighty then how do you decide which he is? Is he Atlas or Olokun or Abenaki or Shiva or Allah or the Judeo/Christian god?

cladking said:

The Maxims of Ptahhotep were probably originally written in modern language. In those days modern language speakers were still able to understand many of the principles of ancient science and understand the formatting of knowledge. I believe that once contact with Ancient Language speakers was lost (for most people around 2000 BC) that all this knowledge and understanding were lost quickly.

There is nothing inherently "confused" about modern language and virtually anything can be communicated but there is no underlying logic, science, or semblance to reality. Since Ptahhotep's wisdom was rooted in AL it was lost as the last of the AL speakers died out around the 12th century BC. After this modern language speakers were entirely on our own.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is the supposedly superior "species" that you call The Ancient Language Speakers, was wiped out/overtaken by mere homo sapiens. An inferior species eliminating a superior species. How interesting.

Have you any ideas theories on how our inferior species accomplished this?

ecco said:

What you are saying is the supposedly superior "species" that you call The Ancient Language Speakers, was wiped out/overtaken by mere homo sapiens. An inferior species eliminating a superior species. How interesting.

Have you any ideas theories on how our inferior species accomplished this?

Click to expand...

There is no natural mechanism that makes sure species "improve"; they merely change with bottlenecks.

Ancient Language became too complex and had to fail but agriculture still sustained the our species until the invention of modern science which fell off the cart in the 19th century when the horse was put before it. Now we keep going in the ditch or getting stuck in ruts and no one seems to notice because technology is grand. Science is stuck but technology has far to go to catch it in the ditch.

Imagine how much better giraffes would do today without the long necks!

ecco said:

What you are saying is the supposedly superior "species" that you call The Ancient Language Speakers, was wiped out/overtaken by mere homo sapiens. An inferior species eliminating a superior species. How interesting.

Have you any ideas theories on how our inferior species accomplished this?

Click to expand...

cladking said:

There is no natural mechanism that makes sure species "improve"; they merely change with bottlenecks.

Click to expand...

Stop wiggling! You've been saying all along that The Ancient Language Speakers were a species superior to us. You need to explain how we, the inferior species, got the best of them.

cladking said:

Ancient Language became too complex and had to fail

Click to expand...

If your Ancient Language became so complex that it had to fail, that doesn't say much for your supposedly superior Ancient Language Speakers. It looks more like a bad comedy movie where everyone runs around making up more and more words until everyone's head explodes from the overload.

Mother nature never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations. But she is a grand experimenter and an individual was born with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions through a mutation. THIS created Homo Sapiens. Nature made no provisions for complex knowledge but 40,000 years of ancient science created so much knowledge it outgrew the language. Rather than having their heads explode (which would be a highly maladaptive mutation) people simply started using the exact same vocabulary in a different format. This pidgin language worked very poorly at first because the vocabulary was insufficient to the task but over time it worked well enough to allow basic communication.

But this pidgin language forced individuals to think differently and a second speech center arose in each of them to facilitate their ability to communicate what their now analog brain had to say to their still digital and original (wernicke's area) speech center. Each individual who communicates must "grow" this new translator (broca's area) somewhere near the front of their brains. Homo Sapiens used a digital metaphysical language to model reality itself in their brains but we new people with a broca's area think in analog with an analog language and model our beliefs. We are differentiated principally by the presence of the new speech center anatomically but we are otherwise the "same". Of course there are massive differences in behavior caused by the different way to think.

We believe and model our ancestors as various types of sun addled bumpkins but when we arose they called us "confused" and we still are. We still model reality on our beliefs and communicate in a language that each individual deconstructs in a unique way.

AL speakers were in no way superior to us. But they had a working understanding of consciousness which made them much more wise and capable of answering many fundamental questions. To engage the part of the brain that thinks this way we must be asleep. We "sleep on it" to arrive at answers that came naturally to Homo Sapiens automatically and while they were awake. There are many differences but in most ways we are really quite the same. as a "species" they were far more concerned with history and the future of the human race than we are. They were far more concerned with the effects of their actions (individually and collectively) and they were far more concerned with ritual, ceremony, and tradition than we are.

They were not superior though they were far less likely to destroy themselves, the planet, or their niche than we are. They could predict the consequences of their actions.

cladking said:

They were not superior though they were far less likely to destroy themselves, the planet, or their niche than we are. They could predict the consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

Indeed, they built the Great Pyramid as a time capsule and a monument to their "genius". Egyptology applied a little century old technology and found a massive anomaly and aren't even supplying the data about it to Peers!!! They are doing (not doing) this because they are afraid of the meaning of the anomaly. The real irony is that we might need the time capsule disclosed by this anomaly to survive the challenges of the next century.

They could foresee that Ancient Language was going to fail so they left everything they knew samples for us. It is still there waiting.

Curiosity is a fundamental human trait shared by Homo Sapiens and Homo Omnisciencis but apparently Homo Egyptologist is not afflicted with it. I believe that this gene is sucked out of them and replaced with a ramp when they are in graduate school or, perhaps, when they fall asleep with a suspicious pod in the same room.

...And yet their heads don't explode because they see what they want.

cladking said:

Mother nature never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations.

Click to expand...

Evidence please.

ACTUAL evidence - not your usual dodgy meandering assertion-laden nonsense.

"Mother nature never intended that a species would develop a language sufficiently complex to create the accumulation of complex knowledge over the generations."

tas8831 said:

Evidence please.

ACTUAL evidence - not your usual dodgy meandering assertion-laden nonsense.

Click to expand...

Really!?!??? You do realize "mother nature" doesn't "really" exist except as a metaphor?

Do you even accept the concept that it was complex language that gave rise to humanity?

If you disagree or don't understand these things then showing "proof" is an impossibility. Funny thing about reason is that it only works where definitions and premises are shared. It only works if people aren't playing semantical games.

cladking said:

Really!?!??? You do realize "mother nature" doesn't "really" exist except as a metaphor?

Click to expand...

I could have used the word "God", "Nature", or "Gods" but you'd have found that offensive probably. It certainly sets off a lot of people.

Do you even accept the concept that it was complex language that gave rise to humanity?

Click to expand...

This would be a far better place to start. Maybe you could try to explain why humans suddenly started acting human 40,000 years ago. I maintain it's because Homo Sapiens arose suddenly just like almost all other species about 40,000 years ago.

If you disagree or don't understand these things then showing "proof" is an impossibility. Funny thing about reason is that it only works where definitions and premises are shared. It only works if people aren't playing semantical games.

Click to expand...

You don't want to engage in debate. You want to wow people with your knowledge of science and "science". You are offended that I'm not wowed even though I'm probably more impressed than most people. It's not you depth of knowledge that is the problem here; it's the fact that neuorobiology has no comprehension or even a working definition of "consciousness". And they don't understand that consciousness is fundamental to life individually and collectively. So rather than listening to me you just keep saying what you know and how the world works according to your understanding of science.

Polymath257 said:

So you are objecting to the fact that several independent lines of investigation lead to the same conclusion?

Click to expand...

Consider..What's the alternative? Now you tell me.