physorg.com— Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry.
May 8, 2007View in Crawl 4
@gerhamWere all Homo sapiens. The only thing that defines 'race' is a frequency of allele traits. 'Race' is a complete artifical creation. Alas, some people have the blinders on and wont let go of it.
I don't see how these findings prove anything about evolution. From article:"Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago."The article says Homo sapiens "originated". No link between homo sapiens and any other species have been discovered. At the least this article proves that humans did not evolve from other near human species like Neanderthals, going so far as to say early homo sapiens did not mix with these other species. Fact: No link has been found between any two species proving evolution. We can hypothesize that the link exists, but fossil records do not indicate this. If anything, with the amount of fossils we have, probability models indicate creational evolution does not exist. Adaptive evolution certainly does exist. There is a difference. SEE: Archaeological Convention Chicago 1980 - Darwin's Gap is too big - leaps in evolution theory springs into being to fill the gap
There's plenty of links between species - whales have vestigial hips, chimp and human DNA is 9X% similar, birds and dinosaurs have similar bone structures not found anywhere else.What you want to see is evidence of one species turning into another, which is impossible since the changes are so gradual that it's not possible to identify the point at which one species 'becomes' another.The classification system we call 'species' is one that we invented, a gene has no concept of species.
Genetic mutation isn't evolution. Evolution is a change to better survive in an environment.God didn't arrange a computer. but he did create the plastic, metal, and copper. The computer IS made out of materials from the Earth, which God created.
((There's plenty of links between species - whales have vestigial hips, chimp and human DNA is 9X% similar, birds and dinosaurs have similar bone structures not found anywhere else.What you want to see is evidence of one species turning into another, ))***Wrong... what you see is a designer using similar designs. Why reinvent the wheel? Einstein and Hawkings have both confessed to a belief in intelligent design. If the really big brains don't have a problem with the concept, why do piss ant brains keep denying it? go figure.
((If Jesus is God then he is saying that anyone he sends is also God? If Jesus was God who sent Him? No one is above God Almighty so no one could have sent him. This verse only makes sense if someone of greater rank than Jesus was the sender. If Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.))***Can you say clone? Virgin birth. Egg taken from Mary, hollowed out. DNA of Yaweh inserted.
"Yeah, I know all that. I meant conclusive, not in the probative sense, but as the inverse of inconclusive. Conclusive as being consistent with a known theory, or just data from which a conclusion may be drawn. "One may conclude that this data is consistent with the theory of Evolution.""In other words, conclusion, not Conclusion, to borrow your format."We know there are problems with the current state of scientific theory. We can't explain the degree of uniformity/non-uniformity of the universe for example. "Inflation" helps. There are theories we know don't work in some limits. We do not have an accurate quantum theory of relativity, for example.Intelligent design, on the other hand, has no such challenges from data. Intelligent design is consistent with all data. Things can always be as they are because the creator chooses to make them that way. So data cannot contradict intelligent design. That is why intelligent design is not and cannot be science. Science must be able to make predictions that can be shown to be wrong.Which brings us back to my earlier point.The best case for intelligent design would be for it makes an astonishing prediction that was not otherwise expected by existing scientific theories. Intelligent design articulated just such a prediction thousands of years ago: that the age of the universe is finite, that it had a beginning. That was considered quite implausible by physicists prior to the experiment of Penzias and Wilson. This is evidence for intelligent design, for a creator, but it still does not make ID science.
labmouse42May 10, 2007
@gerhamWere all Homo sapiens. The only thing that defines 'race' is a frequency of allele traits. 'Race' is a complete artifical creation. Alas, some people have the blinders on and wont let go of it.
r2deboMay 10, 2007
I don't see how these findings prove anything about evolution. From article:"Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago."The article says Homo sapiens "originated". No link between homo sapiens and any other species have been discovered. At the least this article proves that humans did not evolve from other near human species like Neanderthals, going so far as to say early homo sapiens did not mix with these other species. Fact: No link has been found between any two species proving evolution. We can hypothesize that the link exists, but fossil records do not indicate this. If anything, with the amount of fossils we have, probability models indicate creational evolution does not exist. Adaptive evolution certainly does exist. There is a difference. SEE: Archaeological Convention Chicago 1980 - Darwin's Gap is too big - leaps in evolution theory springs into being to fill the gap
johnnysaucepnMay 11, 2007
There's plenty of links between species - whales have vestigial hips, chimp and human DNA is 9X% similar, birds and dinosaurs have similar bone structures not found anywhere else.What you want to see is evidence of one species turning into another, which is impossible since the changes are so gradual that it's not possible to identify the point at which one species 'becomes' another.The classification system we call 'species' is one that we invented, a gene has no concept of species.
pureeviljesterMay 11, 2007
Genetic mutation isn't evolution. Evolution is a change to better survive in an environment.God didn't arrange a computer. but he did create the plastic, metal, and copper. The computer IS made out of materials from the Earth, which God created.
froggy57May 11, 2007
((There's plenty of links between species - whales have vestigial hips, chimp and human DNA is 9X% similar, birds and dinosaurs have similar bone structures not found anywhere else.What you want to see is evidence of one species turning into another, ))***Wrong... what you see is a designer using similar designs. Why reinvent the wheel? Einstein and Hawkings have both confessed to a belief in intelligent design. If the really big brains don't have a problem with the concept, why do piss ant brains keep denying it? go figure.
froggy57May 11, 2007
((If Jesus is God then he is saying that anyone he sends is also God? If Jesus was God who sent Him? No one is above God Almighty so no one could have sent him. This verse only makes sense if someone of greater rank than Jesus was the sender. If Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.))***Can you say clone? Virgin birth. Egg taken from Mary, hollowed out. DNA of Yaweh inserted.
fluoriteMay 20, 2007
"Yeah, I know all that. I meant conclusive, not in the probative sense, but as the inverse of inconclusive. Conclusive as being consistent with a known theory, or just data from which a conclusion may be drawn. "One may conclude that this data is consistent with the theory of Evolution.""In other words, conclusion, not Conclusion, to borrow your format."We know there are problems with the current state of scientific theory. We can't explain the degree of uniformity/non-uniformity of the universe for example. "Inflation" helps. There are theories we know don't work in some limits. We do not have an accurate quantum theory of relativity, for example.Intelligent design, on the other hand, has no such challenges from data. Intelligent design is consistent with all data. Things can always be as they are because the creator chooses to make them that way. So data cannot contradict intelligent design. That is why intelligent design is not and cannot be science. Science must be able to make predictions that can be shown to be wrong.Which brings us back to my earlier point.The best case for intelligent design would be for it makes an astonishing prediction that was not otherwise expected by existing scientific theories. Intelligent design articulated just such a prediction thousands of years ago: that the age of the universe is finite, that it had a beginning. That was considered quite implausible by physicists prior to the experiment of Penzias and Wilson. This is evidence for intelligent design, for a creator, but it still does not make ID science.