Is evolution as reliable as gravity?

[tumbleweed41]

Us getting evolved from Apes has like 0.00000000001 probability----i thought i had made it clear in another thread which apparently got deleted that there is no evolution-----many scientists agree with that

Also recent studies in molecular biology have proved the possibility of tracing biological races through mitochondrial DNA, which are micro molecules in the cell's liquid. Their mission is to support the living cell with the energy it needs. The DNA does not participate in the meiosis process for blending the genes of the parents, because it is taken from the mother's ovum only. This way, it would be possible to trace female generations back to great-grandmothers, until we come to the first mother Hawaa (Eve); this part of the mother's DNA does not change except by mutations inherited from a generation of mothers to another.

It has been discovered that all humans share one mitochondrial DNA that they have inherited from one grandmother who is the mother of all humanity, whose existence is assumed to have been 200,000 years ago. This scientific fact refutes the “Theory of Evolution” and the superstitions that claim man's multiple origins;

Silly Creationist...
Mitochondrial Eve not only supports, and is supported by, Evolutionary Biology. The findings of the Mitochondrial tracings support the 'Out of Africa' theory that humans evolved fairly recently in Africa and spread from there. Replacing many of the 'archaic' hominids such as Neanderthals.

BTW, the odds that the sugar grains I spilled this morning would fall exactly where they did are infinitesimal. But they did.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

If yer gonna use math, at least show us your assumptions & calculations.
Otherwise, tis just plucking numbers from thin air.

Hmmm---if evolution was to occur imagine ---- small organism miraculously was made (something no scientist has been able to do)... and continually reproduced and mutated, and turned into strange animals, which turned into apes and humans---scientists have a ton of missing links Buddy

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm---if evolution was to occur imagine ---- small organism miraculously was made (something no scientist has been able to do)... and continually reproduced and mutated, and turned into strange animals, which turned into apes and humans---scientists have a ton of missing links Buddy

That doesn't support your probability calculation.
And links will always be "missing"...tis the nature of sequential events & the rarity of fossil formation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hmmm---if evolution was to occur imagine ---- small organism miraculously was made (something no scientist has been able to do)... and continually reproduced and mutated, and turned into strange animals, which turned into apes and humans---scientists have a ton of missing links Buddy

Not really. You are just ignoring a ton of empirical evidence.

(And Biological Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis. God could have created that first spark of life and Biological Evolution would still have occurred. As it continues to do today.)

 

[painted wolf]

Hmmm---if evolution was to occur imagine ---- small organism miraculously was made (something no scientist has been able to do)... and continually reproduced and mutated, and turned into strange animals, which turned into apes and humans---scientists have a ton of missing links Buddy

You mean like this?
Scientists Create Artificial Life -- a Living Organism from Bottled Chemicals - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

wa:do

 

[David M]

Us getting evolved from Apes has like 0.00000000001 probability----i thought i had made it clear in another thread which apparently got deleted that there is no evolution-----many scientists agree with that

No, the chance that humans did not evolve from apes is about 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...fe-evolved-single-cell-study.html#post2190929

For every scientists that denies evolution there are thousands that do not, so using your logic evolution wins on a numbers count.

Also recent studies in molecular biology have proved the possibility of tracing biological races through mitochondrial DNA, which are micro molecules in the cell's liquid. Their mission is to support the living cell with the energy it needs. The DNA does not participate in the meiosis process for blending the genes of the parents, because it is taken from the mother's ovum only. This way, it would be possible to trace female generations back to great-grandmothers, until we come to the first mother Hawaa (Eve); this part of the mother's DNA does not change except by mutations inherited from a generation of mothers to another.

Not strictly true as it turns out. People can inherit mtDNA from the father but this is very rare and doesn't appeciably affect the calculations.

It has been discovered that all humans share one mitochondrial DNA that they have inherited from one grandmother who is the mother of all humanity, whose existence is assumed to have been 200,000 years ago. This scientific fact refutes the “Theory of Evolution” and the superstitions that claim man's multiple origins;

You really don't understand the facts do you. Mitochondrial Eve does not mean that there was ever only 1 female human on the planet.

The only superstitions about man's origins come from people like you. The evidence says that there was one origin, mankind evolved from earlier ancestors in Africa.

 

[newhope101]

No, the chance that humans did not evolve from apes is about 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

Have you read The Upright Ape and supporting research? It proposes an excellent argument for the first bipedal apes to have existed 21 billion years ago, therefore sharing an evolutionary line with apes including oragutangs, gorrilas and finally chimps. Homo sapience diverged directly from a shared evolutionary line with apes. This does not prove humans did not evolve. However it does prove that researchers have many theories, some better supported than others.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...fe-evolved-single-cell-study.html#post2190929

For every scientists that denies evolution there are thousands that do not, so using your logic evolution wins on a numbers count.

When popular thinking was the world was flat that did not make it correct.


Not strictly true as it turns out. People can inherit mtDNA from the father but this is very rare and doesn't appeciably affect the calculations.
Mankind is the only organism the bible states only two individuals started the whole line. God may have made one pair or many pairs of each kind. MtEve supports this, if it supports anything at all, and isn't just another erranous attempt to link ancestry.


You really don't understand the facts do you. Mitochondrial Eve does not mean that there was ever only 1 female human on the planet. It doesn't prove there wasn't either.
The only superstitions about man's origins come from people like you. The evidence says that there was one origin, mankind evolved from earlier ancestors in Africa.

Such is popular opinion. There is good research out there to say mankind arose 21 billion years ago also, with bipedal walking. Where does that leave out of Africa theory?

There is plenty of evidence around that there is no LUCA also and plenty of models reflecting same have been proposed. Really I do not see evolutionary science as real science. Either these researchers know what they are looking at or they do not. There is that much debate that it appears proven that it is all hypothetical. If the theories around gravity had similar scientific veracity as evolutionary theory does mankind would never have made it to the moon. I have never heard of NASA scientists discussing and squabbling over perhaps, maybe, likely, unlikely when they are predicting trajectories.

Researchers can use genes out of one species and they work well in a totally unrelated species to express various body parts and functions. The majority of Genes have not evolved nor changed much at all, just where they are located, whether or not they are switched on, what body part or function will eventualy be expressed etc. Various species have few unique genes comparatively, not found anywhere in any other species genome.

Having said that there is plenty of research that indicates the universal constant is not the same in every part of the universe. However it works well in our part of the universe. Not unlike physiscs that works well gererally but falls apart in quantum mechanics. Not unlike big bang theory that works well untill you start talking about singularities.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Such is popular opinion. There is good research out there to say mankind arose 21 billion years ago also, with bipedal walking. Where does that leave out of Africa theory?

Source?

There is plenty of evidence around that there is no LUCA also and plenty of models reflecting same have been proposed.

Source?

Really I do not see evolutionary science as real science.

From reading your posts, that does not really surprise me.

 

[T-Dawg]

In some senses, the idea of intelligent falling has more substance than the idea of intelligent design (granted that's not hard, and it doesn't say the nicest things about ID). Although biologists know very well how life developed, gravity still lacks a coherent and totally reliable explanation. And yet, no one's pushing to have intelligent falling put on the curriculum. Hmm...perhaps there is a lesson there about gaps in scientific knowledge.

Intelligent falling - RationalWiki

 

[Kerr]

Have you read The Upright Ape and supporting research? It proposes an excellent argument for the first bipedal apes to have existed 21 billion years ago, therefore sharing an evolutionary line with apes including oragutangs, gorrilas and finally chimps. Homo sapience diverged directly from a shared evolutionary line with apes. This does not prove humans did not evolve. However it does prove that researchers have many theories, some better supported than others.

Such is popular opinion. There is good research out there to say mankind arose 21 billion years ago also, with bipedal walking. Where does that leave out of Africa theory?

21 billion years ago? Sure you do not mean 21 million years ago? Not that I have read anything about this, I just thought that since the Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years, give or take, it sounds like a weird number.

 

[Gunfingers]

Hell, the universe is only 14 billion years old. That would make humans half-again as old as the universe.

 

[Nepenthe]

The quote function for your posts is a real pain in the ***. :sarcastic If I've misquoted you or mistakenly attributed something to your post(s) please let me know.

Have you read The Upright Ape and supporting research? It proposes an excellent argument for the first bipedal apes to have existed 21 billion years ago, therefore sharing an evolutionary line with apes including oragutangs, gorrilas and finally chimps. Homo sapience diverged directly from a shared evolutionary line with apes. This does not prove humans did not evolve. However it does prove that researchers have many theories, some better supported than others.

Not 21 billion years ago but concurrent with proconsul, between about 23 to 17 mya. What Filler argues in The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species is that the origins of bipedalism are far older than what bio-anthropologists currently think. Primate locomotion, particularly arguments over bipedalism, are contentious and varied but do little to support the idea that scientific controversies equal scientific rifts or that the foundations of evolution aren't secure. Sure there are many ideas concerning bipedalism but presenting new data to be peer reviewed and analyzed is an example of the strength of science not a weakness.

Mankind is the only organism the bible states only two individuals started the whole line. God may have made one pair or many pairs of each kind. MtEve supports this, if it supports anything at all, and isn't just another erranous attempt to link ancestry.

The whole Mitochondrial Eve issue is an excellent example of bad science reporting. Mitochiondrial Eve (mtDNAE) is not our common ancestor but the most recent common ancestor of all Homo sapiens today in respect to matrilineal lineage, not to the most recent common ancestor in general. She simply represents that woman whose mtDNA, mutations and all, is present in us today. It’s funny that mtDNAE is so commonly misinterpreted while still supported by many types of creationists, yet they fail to acknowledge the relevance of the finding- simply put it’s evidence to support and bolster the Out of Africa, a theory you then later question.


Nordborg’s paper on coalescent theory is a good read on population genetics and might help clear up common misconceptions over studies like Mitochondrial Eve.

Such is popular opinion. There is good research out there to say mankind arose 21 billion years ago also, with bipedal walking. Where does that leave out of Africa theory?

No, Filler’s book does not claim that “mankind arose 21 billion years ago”. Again, it’s more like 20 million years ago and Filler’s book is about bipedalism and our non-human primate ancestors, specifically proconsul, not modern “man”. The Homo species didn’t make an appearance until just over 2 mya, sapiens didn’t come onto the scene ‘til much later.

And moving bipedalism further back in time has no impact on the out of Africa or multiregional hypotheses. The Out of Africa idea is still well substantiated. Can you explain in your own words why you think it would be affected?

 

[newhope101]

The quote function for your posts is a real pain in the ***. :sarcastic If I've misquoted you or mistakenly attributed something to your post(s) please let me know.


Not 21 billion years ago but concurrent with proconsul, between about 23 to 17 mya. What Filler argues in The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species is that the origins of bipedalism are far older than what bio-anthropologists currently think. Primate locomotion, particularly arguments over bipedalism, are contentious and varied but do little to support the idea that scientific controversies equal scientific rifts or that the foundations of evolution aren't secure. Sure there are many ideas concerning bipedalism but presenting new data to be peer reviewed and analyzed is an example of the strength of science not a weakness.
Exactly..what it does is make Homo erectus, habilis etc Chimp ancestors also. I always thought bipedalism was a silly descriptor for the beginning of the Homo line. Any person can see a chimp is capable of walking.
The whole Mitochondrial Eve issue is an excellent example of bad science reporting. Mitochiondrial Eve (mtDNAE) is not our common ancestor but the most recent common ancestor of all Homo sapiens today in respect to matrilineal lineage, not to the most recent common ancestor in general. She simply represents that woman whose mtDNA, mutations and all, is present in us today. It’s funny that mtDNAE is so commonly misinterpreted while still supported by many types of creationists, yet they fail to acknowledge the relevance of the finding- simply put it’s evidence to support and bolster the Out of Africa, a theory you then later question.


Nordborg’s paper on coalescent theory is a good read on population genetics and might help clear up common misconceptions over studies like Mitochondrial Eve.

No, Filler’s book does not claim that “mankind arose 21 billion years ago”. Again, it’s more like 20 million years ago and Filler’s book is about bipedalism and our non-human primate ancestors, specifically proconsul, not modern “man”. The Homo species didn’t make an appearance until just over 2 mya, sapiens didn’t come onto the scene ‘til much later.

And moving bipedalism further back in time has no impact on the out of Africa or multiregional hypotheses. The Out of Africa idea is still well substantiated. Can you explain in your own words why you think it would be affected?

This is not a debating thread. These are examples of how evolutionary science is not a science at all. The various hypothesis you speak to re my examples only go to support my assertion that theory of gravity is NOT like theories of evolution. Gravity works every time and the model does not change, men get to the moon. That shows they got it right. However the same cannot be said for evolutionary theory...is the point.

If evolutionary theory was a science they would have one model that would stand the test of time. Rather there are many models, including multiple genesis, the one quoted which is a different take on Primate evolution, and we won't even mention the inconsistencies and debates related to the various taxons. Evolutionary science is not real science. It is more like humanities or social sciences that speak to maybe, perhaps, more likely etc. You do not see that kind of talk when disussing the theory of general relativity.

 

[Gunfingers]

This is not a debating thread. These are examples of how evolutionary science is not a science at all. The various hypothesis you speak to re my examples only go to support my assertion that theory of gravity is NOT like theories of evolution. Gravity works every time and the model does not change, men get to the moon. That shows they got it right. However the same cannot be said for evolutionary theory...is the point.

If evolutionary theory was a science they would have one model that would stand the test of time. Rather there are many models, including multiple genesis, the one quoted which is a different take on Primate evolution, and we won't even mention the inconsistencies and debates related to the various taxons. Evolutionary science is not real science. It is more like humanities or social sciences that speak to maybe, perhaps, more likely etc. You do not see that kind of talk when disussing the theory of general relativity.

Gravity has been modeled repeatedly too, and there is an ongoing argument among physicists on whether there is a "gravity" particle or some other means by which the force works. And that's despite the fact that gravity has been under study for four centuries.

 

[painted wolf]

Which single model of gravity are you talking about? Newtons', Einsteins' or Quantum?

There is no single model...

wa:do

ps. bipedalism is not the descriptor for the beginning of the genus Homo.

 

[Nepenthe]

Exactly..what it does is make Homo erectus, habilis etc Chimp ancestors also. I always thought bipedalism was a silly descriptor for the beginning of the Homo line. Any person can see a chimp is capable of walking.

ps. bipedalism is not the descriptor for the beginning of the genus Homo.

Like most of PW's posts this one deserves to be posted at the top of my voice:
Bipedalism is not the descriptor for the beginning of the genus Homo.
The genus Homo is characterized by a huge leap in cranial capacity (roughly 400 cc to 600 cc) and the introduction of the Oldowan industry, not bipedalism.

This is not a debating thread.

Sure it is.

These are examples of how evolutionary science is not a science at all.

How is referencing a controversial book on the origins of bipedalism an example of how evolution is not a science? Even if bipedalism is definitively traced to 21 mya how would that affect evolutionary biology? Can you explain? <hint: it would have no relevance on how alterations in alleles within a population have an impact on one generation to the next which is essentially raw material for natural selection to work with>. Bipedalism's origins have nothing to do with the change in the frequency of genes in a population.

The various hypothesis you speak to re my examples only go to support my assertion that theory of gravity is NOT like theories of evolution. Gravity works every time and the model does not change, men get to the moon. That shows they got it right. However the same cannot be said for evolutionary theory...is the point.

And you'd be wrong. Evolution "works" every time if by "work" you mean it's observable. Ernst Mayr said it best with "...evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation."

If evolutionary theory was a science they would have one model that would stand the test of time. Rather there are many models, including multiple genesis, the one quoted which is a different take on Primate evolution, and we won't even mention the inconsistencies and debates related to the various taxons. Evolutionary science is not real science. It is more like humanities or social sciences that speak to maybe, perhaps, more likely etc. You do not see that kind of talk when disussing the theory of general relativity.

Evolution is the unifying theory for all of biology. To misquote someone famous, "nothing makes sense, etc., etc. Evolution is mathematically unavoidable given a set of parameters as Hardy-Weinberg demonstrated. There's nothing controversial about it at all. There are some disagreements over the details of mechanisms like natural selection, etc., but evolution is an indisputable fact.

 

[newhope101]

Honestly I have never met a better bunch of side winders. Do you all remember the flavour of the thread..Is Evolution as reliable as gravity?

I put up an opinion and threw in a couple of examples out of the plethora of those available to show up the obvious inconsistencies in your evolutionary theory and all you can do is pick them to pieces. Dear me. I suppose you bunch are those super scientists that disagree with other well credentialed scientists on the dilemmas related to evolutionary theory. You are that clever you can answer all the questions, fill in all the gaps, and therefore your evolutionary theory is comparable to the laws of general relativity, gravity, physics and maths. Get over it...even a moron should be able to see the difference.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[painted wolf]

So the fact that we point out where you are making silly mistakes makes us morons?

That's cute.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Honestly I have never met a better bunch of side winders. Do you all remember the flavour of the thread..Is Evolution as reliable as gravity?

I put up an opinion and threw in a couple of examples out of the plethora of those available to show up the obvious inconsistencies in your evolutionary theory and all you can do is pick them to pieces. Dear me. I suppose you bunch are those super scientists that disagree with other well credentialed scientists on the dilemmas related to evolutionary theory. You are that clever you can answer all the questions, fill in all the gaps, and therefore your evolutionary theory is comparable to the laws of general relativity, gravity, physics and maths. Get over it...even a moron should be able to see the difference.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[newhope101]

Misquote again Wolf.....No.. what would make a person cognitively challenged is to even entertain the idea that evolutionary theory is anything like the real sciences!

Nepenthe Quote: How is referencing a controversial book on the origins of bipedalism an example of how evolution is not a science? Even if bipedalism is definitively traced to 21 mya how would that affect evolutionary biology? Can you explain? <hint: it would have no relevance on how alterations in alleles within a population have an impact on one generation to the next which is essentially raw material for natural selection to work with>. Bipedalism's origins have nothing to do with the change in the frequency of genes in a population.

1. Too bad natural selection is long gone as the only method for speciation.
2. Mutations in VLDLR affect brain development and influence gait in humans.
3. Early hominins such as Ardipithecus kadabba could have become facultatively bipedal (as is Ar. kaddaba) by a one-off genomic change such as the Robertsonian-type fusion of the Hox D gene to chromosome 2, that has a strong influence on the human position of the pelvis along the spine.

The book "The Upright Ape", and accompanying research puts your precious homo erectus, heidelbegensis, florensiensis and all the rest of your dear homo ancestors back into SHARED ancestors with non human primates and not the ancestors of homo sapiens alone. Or are you another one that is going to say this is the way it's always been. However the theories around gravity do not change every year or so.

What about your species problem, what about the debate on the classification of many fossils, what about proving there is a LUCA and then proving there isn't one, what about the evidence that supports multiple genesis as opposed to the current model. There are many questions yet to be answered in evolutionary science, unlike the theory of gravity that at least works in our part of the universe every time without a 'maybe'.

You are not educated if you dismiss or are not aware of the standing controversies within the field of evoluionary science. Many well credentialed scientists acknowledge them. Too bad none of you are real scientists.

Hint:..Your opinion is no more important than mine.