In the case of the hairy Mexican people, there's an alteration (probably the gene CGH) in the region of X chromosome which can also produce dental anomalies and deafness. Experimental MANIPULATIONS such as grafting embryonic tissues between embryos of DIFFERENT SPECIES and production of transgenic animals could reveal similar anomalies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation - Evolution Continuum
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Mr. True Blood have been buttering up Mr. Q lacking anything to add to the issue. Poor stuff! So, I ask him about his posting:
<<I would guess roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour.
Great stuff Q>>
So what? In what way African swallow speed proves evolution?
<<I would guess roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour.
Great stuff Q>>
So what? In what way African swallow speed proves evolution?
Mr. Spinkles: since you mention chemistry, perhaps the expertise of Allan Harvey, Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, specializing in Molecular Thermodynamics will help us to understand the subject better:
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Additional info:
www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or101/101edit.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-162.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-219.htm
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Additional info:
www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or101/101edit.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-162.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-219.htm
As you can see Allan Harvey does not approve all Creationists statements and he even corrects them but neither he stablishes an apology of evolution. Since the man is open and welcomes an eventual constructive criticism on his document, you-know-who may want to write him a personal letter to disagree with him in scientific terms (HA-HA-HA!) to National Institute of Standars and Technology in Boulder, Colorado.
I tell you more, if you can't contact him to his e-mail:
[email protected]
You can try writing to him to 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305, adressed to National Institute of Standars and Technology and ask him personally if evolution is demonstrated or proved by some law. Who knows maybe you can learn something....
[email protected]
You can try writing to him to 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305, adressed to National Institute of Standars and Technology and ask him personally if evolution is demonstrated or proved by some law. Who knows maybe you can learn something....
true blood
Active Member
Inca I was only being a bit sarcastic of Q's random questions he seems to post that are completely off subject.
So, there a fistful of people here who are ready to critize BUT THEY DON'T READ. I quoted some posts and let the reader make his (her) own judgment of the information. I have said I'm not a Creationist though I believe in creation. But the Creatonists have mistakes. The guy here is explaining very clearly that only in isolated systems entropy must increase though the 2nd Law always applies and that is ridiculous to think God's intervention (outside from Thermodynamics) would always violate the 2nd Law of people increasing the number of people on Earth. It's wrong the Creationists argument that "evil" or "ungodly disorder" has to be associated with entropy. That's why I said I have discussed the issue before in this forum. And I said also evolutionists need to demonstrate evolution. Saying the flaws of some Creationists doesn't mean Evolutionists are right. Both have big mistakes. In fact I have said what the Bible usually describes as "god" was a messanger (angel) or an entity. The coming of eventual plural "gods" makes unnecessary God's intervention to break His own law. I have said even more, that the very Hebrew words from the Bible indicate the Creation started with chaotic entropy and eventually ending in the "order". That's so because the Hebrew word for "afternoon" (the "days" of creation started in the afternoon and finished in the morning) which is EREV means also "confused, disordered, mixtured" while "morning" BOKER means "distinguished, capable to be seen, ordered". In fact, the Genesis account in original Hebrew and not modern translations used by Creationists, indicate there was God's Big Crunch (tsim tsum) even before the universe's Big Bang. I even posted what I wrote in physics forum but I guess people prefer to jump rather than reading.
OPS! So, excuse ME for misunderstanding!
About this thing about entropy I recomend the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by physicist and theologist Gerald L. Schroeder formed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology who used to dwell in Jerusalem and travel abroad through all the world as a speecher and consultant. His research was given all international attention in Newsweek and Jerusalem Post and innumerous academic publications. He's not an unknown Mr who Q writing in bitter subjectivity. The subject in particular was discussed in chapter 6 "order out of chaos".
About this thing about entropy I recomend the book "Genesis and the Big Bang" by physicist and theologist Gerald L. Schroeder formed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology who used to dwell in Jerusalem and travel abroad through all the world as a speecher and consultant. His research was given all international attention in Newsweek and Jerusalem Post and innumerous academic publications. He's not an unknown Mr who Q writing in bitter subjectivity. The subject in particular was discussed in chapter 6 "order out of chaos".
Now after reading this, you can get back and read again the arguments presented just to compare:
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-219.htm
You'll see that other experts in the field still debate what is open or closed system and how does the law operates or to what degree. Hence, the answer is evoltion is not demonstrated at all. The only thing we can say that probably it COULD work. Yet what's Mr. Harvey's mistake? He disconsiders the mathematical odds against the things we could observe in nature and what we have never seen. If you pay attention to this you disregard the evolution idea coming by a series of happy events.
Also you can read in Psalms 102:26 the idea presented is not against entropy. It's a better metaphora than the one used by Harvey about "coins" because it's specific and I already quoted other texts about spherical Earth or hanging on "nothing" in the Bible.
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-219.htm
You'll see that other experts in the field still debate what is open or closed system and how does the law operates or to what degree. Hence, the answer is evoltion is not demonstrated at all. The only thing we can say that probably it COULD work. Yet what's Mr. Harvey's mistake? He disconsiders the mathematical odds against the things we could observe in nature and what we have never seen. If you pay attention to this you disregard the evolution idea coming by a series of happy events.
Also you can read in Psalms 102:26 the idea presented is not against entropy. It's a better metaphora than the one used by Harvey about "coins" because it's specific and I already quoted other texts about spherical Earth or hanging on "nothing" in the Bible.
When I say "it could work", obviously is in reference to the context of what we're discussing now, which is "entropy". Evolution doesn't work with mutations, there's no "gap" in fossils whose parts are complete. If you forgot you can re-read again all previous pages from the start.
dudley thoth
Member
true blood said:
When I say "it could work", obviously is in reference to the context of what we're discussing now, which is "entropy". Evolution doesn't work with mutations, there's no "gap" in fossils whose parts are complete. If you forgot you can re-read again all previous pages from the start.
Why bother re-reading? You have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. Your sources are others who have absolutely no idea what theyre talking about or are anecdotal.
And unless youve spent your life in a cave, youll find that those tired entropy arguments against evolution have been refuted.
Its very annoying when people like you try to refute that which they dont understand.
Why bother re-reading? You have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. Your sources are others who have absolutely no idea what theyre talking about or are anecdotal.
And unless youve spent your life in a cave, youll find that those tired entropy arguments against evolution have been refuted.
Its very annoying when people like you try to refute that which they dont understand.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Inca
if the hairyness of the nat. geo. pictures were the only thing that made us different from other hominids then I would agree...
however thier are other significant differences between us and other hominid species wich is why they are classed as thier own species to begin with.
extreme thickening of the brow ridges above the eye sockets.
ressisive chins and other aspects of jaw structure
skull capacity far outside the human spectrum
limb structure on both the legs and arms
wrist and hand structure
ankle and foot structure
hip structure
ps... have you ever considered that the word for afternoon means confused/disordered because humans have terrible night vision and when it gets dark they get confused? And the word for morining means ordered because that is when the world returns to being something that we can see and understand? Nothing more elaboate needed.
language is usually pretty straitforward... much like the pictures of the snakes wrestling.
wa:-do
if the hairyness of the nat. geo. pictures were the only thing that made us different from other hominids then I would agree...
however thier are other significant differences between us and other hominid species wich is why they are classed as thier own species to begin with.
extreme thickening of the brow ridges above the eye sockets.
ressisive chins and other aspects of jaw structure
skull capacity far outside the human spectrum
limb structure on both the legs and arms
wrist and hand structure
ankle and foot structure
hip structure
ps... have you ever considered that the word for afternoon means confused/disordered because humans have terrible night vision and when it gets dark they get confused? And the word for morining means ordered because that is when the world returns to being something that we can see and understand? Nothing more elaboate needed.
language is usually pretty straitforward... much like the pictures of the snakes wrestling.
wa:-do
Q: Checkov says communication is imposible with a retarded Klingon and Uhura repeats the frequences are jammed with you! Keep on yelling!
Painted Wolf: It seems you're saying the same thing as I say. Apes are different than man not because of hair but because of many other reasons. Indeed the very consciousness of our specie make us very different. So, what you say is not backing up evolution. Therefore to believe we are descents from hominds would require more than evolution entities well versed in genetic engineering. Probably cos of that Darwin begged the readers at least 7 times in his "Origin of Species" to ingore the fossil record if they want to understand his theory!
Painted Wolf: It seems you're saying the same thing as I say. Apes are different than man not because of hair but because of many other reasons. Indeed the very consciousness of our specie make us very different. So, what you say is not backing up evolution. Therefore to believe we are descents from hominds would require more than evolution entities well versed in genetic engineering. Probably cos of that Darwin begged the readers at least 7 times in his "Origin of Species" to ingore the fossil record if they want to understand his theory!
Can somebody suggest the All-Understanding Mr. "Qute" to read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by scientists Barrow and Tapler? Don't tell me, I know, they are like the rest of the sites, books and authors, nobody understands nothing but Mr. very very decrepit Q's brain, right?
R U talkin' 2 Me? (please, imagine Bob De Niro's gesture in Taxi Driver).
Meanwhile for the rest of readers, it's good to remember prior to 1965 discovery of Big Bang's "echo", 2/3 of the scientists thought Aristoteles & Plato were right and there was no beginning of the Universe. The initial "time" of the universe was considered a fairy tale. Yet the Midrash (Vaikrá Rabá 29:1) was describing in 31 phrases there was the initial beginning of space and time, that was written 1500 years ago and it's not a modern adapted and convenient argument. And as I said before the "entropy"and chaotic circumstances were already written in the Bible. Painted Wolf, the Hebrew meaning is specific and I'm not just using my preference of interpretation. You're just playing games with something you just don't know. You're just improvising something out of your mind lacking the knowledge of Hebrew. The Hebrew word has nothing to do with "visual confusing at night" but disorder, mingled and confused in the afternoon, not evening or night. Now if you wanna learn more about the meaning of "day" and more details in Hebrew language that really needs a different topic. I'd have to say to read Onkelos interpretation of the Jewsih texts 1800 years ago or Maimônides, The Guide for the Perplexed or Namânides's Commentary on the Torah. Please, don't dissapoint us and use whatever it comes to your mind like ourrr dierrr frrriend, precioussssss Q! You sure are smarter than him.
R U talkin' 2 Me? (please, imagine Bob De Niro's gesture in Taxi Driver).
Meanwhile for the rest of readers, it's good to remember prior to 1965 discovery of Big Bang's "echo", 2/3 of the scientists thought Aristoteles & Plato were right and there was no beginning of the Universe. The initial "time" of the universe was considered a fairy tale. Yet the Midrash (Vaikrá Rabá 29:1) was describing in 31 phrases there was the initial beginning of space and time, that was written 1500 years ago and it's not a modern adapted and convenient argument. And as I said before the "entropy"and chaotic circumstances were already written in the Bible. Painted Wolf, the Hebrew meaning is specific and I'm not just using my preference of interpretation. You're just playing games with something you just don't know. You're just improvising something out of your mind lacking the knowledge of Hebrew. The Hebrew word has nothing to do with "visual confusing at night" but disorder, mingled and confused in the afternoon, not evening or night. Now if you wanna learn more about the meaning of "day" and more details in Hebrew language that really needs a different topic. I'd have to say to read Onkelos interpretation of the Jewsih texts 1800 years ago or Maimônides, The Guide for the Perplexed or Namânides's Commentary on the Torah. Please, don't dissapoint us and use whatever it comes to your mind like ourrr dierrr frrriend, precioussssss Q! You sure are smarter than him.
You mean the details of the ancient drawing immediately above "illustration A" in
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
??
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
??
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
*sigh*
so again I ask what makes us so different from Homo Erectus that we could not have be his evolutionary decendants?
What makes him an ape not a hominid?
What makes us human and not a hominid?
we don't have the complete DNA of the other hominids (we have bits of Neandertal DNA) so how can you say that the genetics of humans is so very different from everything elce... its perfectly logical to think that they arose in the other hominids... such as H erectus, H neandertalis et cetera.
what makes humans human?
tool use? (chimps, Australopithicines, H.habilis, H.erectus, H.neandertalis) (heck eaven crows use tools)
fire use? (H.erectus, H.neandertalis)
religion?(H.neandertalis)
abstract thought?(H.habilis, H.erectus, H.neandertalis)
mercy and caring for the sick? (H.neandertalis)
language? (H.neandertalis) (vervet monkies have a rudementarty language that include 'words' for snake, leopard, hawk and 'safe')
as to the imposibility of making living things from only female genes... it does indeed happin... its called pathenogenisis and is done by many life forms... scientits have eaven made mice this way just this year in fact ... here is an article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3643847.stm
the bit about the pygmies and watusis is silly... of cource it takes just as long for them to reach matureity... its how much they grow in that time tha is altered... not the length of time to reach it.
as for stromatolites... they are an accepted part of evolutionary history and in fact are in modern text books... here is a link about them from a genuine science page:
http://www.fossilmall.com/UncleDarwin/stromatolite/About_Stromatolite.htm
on to the arborial aurtralopithicines... yes they were adapted to spend some of thier time in the trees... so what? We also have footprints showing them walking upright accross the savana... They were capable of both actions and used them when the circumstances needed... Thier hips were disigned to permit bipedal movement.
some modern humans have problems of the inner ear wich interfears with thier locomotion and 'car sickness'
wa:-do
so again I ask what makes us so different from Homo Erectus that we could not have be his evolutionary decendants?
What makes him an ape not a hominid?
What makes us human and not a hominid?
we don't have the complete DNA of the other hominids (we have bits of Neandertal DNA) so how can you say that the genetics of humans is so very different from everything elce... its perfectly logical to think that they arose in the other hominids... such as H erectus, H neandertalis et cetera.
what makes humans human?
tool use? (chimps, Australopithicines, H.habilis, H.erectus, H.neandertalis) (heck eaven crows use tools)
fire use? (H.erectus, H.neandertalis)
religion?(H.neandertalis)
abstract thought?(H.habilis, H.erectus, H.neandertalis)
mercy and caring for the sick? (H.neandertalis)
language? (H.neandertalis) (vervet monkies have a rudementarty language that include 'words' for snake, leopard, hawk and 'safe')
as to the imposibility of making living things from only female genes... it does indeed happin... its called pathenogenisis and is done by many life forms... scientits have eaven made mice this way just this year in fact ... here is an article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3643847.stm
the bit about the pygmies and watusis is silly... of cource it takes just as long for them to reach matureity... its how much they grow in that time tha is altered... not the length of time to reach it.
as for stromatolites... they are an accepted part of evolutionary history and in fact are in modern text books... here is a link about them from a genuine science page:
http://www.fossilmall.com/UncleDarwin/stromatolite/About_Stromatolite.htm
on to the arborial aurtralopithicines... yes they were adapted to spend some of thier time in the trees... so what? We also have footprints showing them walking upright accross the savana... They were capable of both actions and used them when the circumstances needed... Thier hips were disigned to permit bipedal movement.
some modern humans have problems of the inner ear wich interfears with thier locomotion and 'car sickness'
wa:-do
First of all the questions you ask have to be responded by science, not by religious people. You admit yourself we don't even have complete DNA. I have already posted sites saying even the number of chromosomes allow a different being between chimps and men. If you don't realize the difference between them and us, I hope you don't get irritated if I say you're a complete monkey female and I'm a man. I didn't say it's impossible to make living things from female genes, in fact that issue is part of the discussion with Dr. Urbina that I'm not allowed to reveal.
The issues about Watusi and Pygmies is not silly. The example given was the fact they can breed among themselves cos all human beings belong to the SAME specie. If you can breed any sort of ape in natural evolution with homo sapiens that would be Darwin miracle! It's evolutionist faith the hominids were a missing link between ape and us. Can you understand yet?
You say "as for stromatolites... they are an accepted part of evolutionary history and in fact are in modern text books" . That's no surprise, the modern books are repeating the same old crap since Darwin and disguised as "fact". Australopithecus maybe left their footprints wherever you like, it doesn't mean they are our ancestors! That's your faith. They can show a cartilage of a shark and you will accept that's your ancestral too. This is no evidence at all! Shall I repeat the example of the one who believed in re-encarnation and showed the irrefutable evidence was the presentation of an egg?
The issues about Watusi and Pygmies is not silly. The example given was the fact they can breed among themselves cos all human beings belong to the SAME specie. If you can breed any sort of ape in natural evolution with homo sapiens that would be Darwin miracle! It's evolutionist faith the hominids were a missing link between ape and us. Can you understand yet?
You say "as for stromatolites... they are an accepted part of evolutionary history and in fact are in modern text books" . That's no surprise, the modern books are repeating the same old crap since Darwin and disguised as "fact". Australopithecus maybe left their footprints wherever you like, it doesn't mean they are our ancestors! That's your faith. They can show a cartilage of a shark and you will accept that's your ancestral too. This is no evidence at all! Shall I repeat the example of the one who believed in re-encarnation and showed the irrefutable evidence was the presentation of an egg?