It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Origin of Creationism

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That may certainly be the case, but the last thing I want is for others to read his assertions and believe that no one has an answer for them (as it might certainly seem if no one actually responds to his questions). I'm a member of the camp that favors discussion of science, as ignoring ignorance or even criticizing it only allows the ignorance to spread (Sorry Dawkins, I do think you're wrong on this).

And please do not misunderstand that statement. I do not believe I have the answers, my knowledge is limited and my experiences are few. I do not even mean to imply that science has all the answers, as there are gaps of information that we do not know, and things that we cannot ever know with absolute certainty. But when there is a model supported by mountains of evidence and observation, it is not intellectually honest to throw your arms up and claim, "You're wrong because of my opinions, feelings, and misinterpretations of the data!"

Regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
I'm a member of the camp that favors discussion of science, as ignoring ignorance or even criticizing it only allows the ignorance to spread (Sorry Dawkins, I do think you're wrong on this).


At least Dr. Dawkins is not ignoring ignorance, and he is trying exactly this, to discuss it, like his attempt with interview of Wendy Wright or discussion with Dr. Deepak Chopra. He did some really good discussion and is working on promoting science (like he discussing science with Dr. Lawrence Krauss). He made some of really good and to the point shows, like The Root of All Evil and The Enemies of Reason.

Person I really miss is late Christopher Hitchens, and how he said it - religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.




edit on 1-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That may certainly be the case, but the last thing I want is for others to read his assertions and believe that no one has an answer for them (as it might certainly seem if no one actually responds to his questions).


I answered his assertions with links earlier in the thread about how the y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve weren't related and didn't live anywhere close or at the same period twice. Not only did he ignore both sets of links, he continued to spew the incorrect information about them saying that they were the first people on the planet (again without supporting links).



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, you did indeed answer his questions. He then asked more questions, asserted more claims. I understand your frustrations, but I don't think it's the best approach to answer his questions for the sake of educating him (which seems to be your intent?). He obviously doesn't want to read those links, but other people who read this thread with a bit more of a thirst for knowledge might do so. Those are the people I answer these "silly" questions for, and those are the people you should think about when responding to his questions. You're not going to change his mind, but you might persuade someone else, someone who is willing to listen.

And yes, don't get me wrong, Dawkins is a great educator (I am still quite partial to his Growing Up in the Universe videos). But he has been known to ridicule ignorance. And yes, sometimes ridicule is perhaps the right method for dealing with certain people. But ridiculing does not persuade, it does not open the ears of an open minded person, it only serves to close them.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

That's generally the approach I make when the person I'm talking to actually makes an attempt to argue back with links of his own. In some of the other threads made on this subject, I will argue for pages with the person because I view it as an intellectual challenge to try to change his mind without being too insulting (sometimes my frustration can come through there too, but I try to keep it in check). Not to mention, going back and forth with these people has helped me learn more about evolution and how works than I ever knew before because it has forced me to research these creationist bogus claims so I can refute them. I also understand that I probably won't change that person's mind, but I want others to read the dialog and come to their own opinions (so many think that an argument is about winning and losing, it's not. It's about informing the audience so that they can weigh both issues and come to their own decisions). Arguing with this guy seems like he isn't trying.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

What are you arguing for in this thread? That mutations don't happen or that they do? If DNA were entirely replaced after a few generations, leaving nothing of the ancestry, would that not be mutation of some neutral sideways variety? We're talking the entire genome of individuals being different from their more distant ancestors.

Do not be offended when I tell you this, but your logic is indeed flawed. Others may be frustrated by your constant refusal to read any of the sources they provide you, but I will soldier on for you here, having already partially answered your question...

Now, let me first correct you, it is not necessarily 50%:50% mother:father when it comes to DNA... Why is this? Well, you've been educated on this one already, too, so let me say that you might consider a mutation a result of gene changes. Here's a nice little link, and I will ask you to also check out the blue words "duplication," "translocation," and "deletion."
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to understand the strangeness of sexual reproduction, we really must look at the process that creates gamete(reproductive) cells... This link is useful. But if you can't be bothered to read, the most important thing is that 4 genetically unique cells are formed from one dividing cell...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I don't want to give you "the talk" and explain sexual reproduction in too much detail here, as I really don't know how old you are or if you've been given "the talk" already, so I'll leave that part up to you. Let us just note that the cell that ultimately fertilizes the egg is a result of... chance? Probability? Randomness, as you would call it. So, theoretically, a human could pass on the same genetic information from a neanderthal 100% of the time if the genes that belonged to neanderthal were the ones that entered the gamete.

Now, I've also made the claim that I've partially answered your question before. How dare I do so, as I have not provided evidence... Wait, here it is.
It's that whole concept of geographic isolation and reproduction. If there is not a lot of genetic diversity in a population, they will interbreed passing the same traits throughout the population. Incidentally, this is again how speciation would occur, and it is partially responsible for the appearance of mutations such as blue eyes in small populations.

Now I do apologize for this long post, I'm long winded and I could have slimmed it down, but you can't expect the best teacher for free, right?

Regards,
Hydeman
even if every homosapian was paired with a Neanderthal and the child gets 90% of his or her DNA from the Neanderthal, still can't end up with a wopping 2% DNA from Neanderthal!!!!!!! After 1000 generations from the end of the Neanderthal!!!!!



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

What are you arguing for in this thread? That mutations don't happen or that they do? If DNA were entirely replaced after a few generations, leaving nothing of the ancestry, would that not be mutation of some neutral sideways variety? We're talking the entire genome of individuals being different from their more distant ancestors.

Do not be offended when I tell you this, but your logic is indeed flawed. Others may be frustrated by your constant refusal to read any of the sources they provide you, but I will soldier on for you here, having already partially answered your question...

Now, let me first correct you, it is not necessarily 50%:50% mother:father when it comes to DNA... Why is this? Well, you've been educated on this one already, too, so let me say that you might consider a mutation a result of gene changes. Here's a nice little link, and I will ask you to also check out the blue words "duplication," "translocation," and "deletion."
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to understand the strangeness of sexual reproduction, we really must look at the process that creates gamete(reproductive) cells... This link is useful. But if you can't be bothered to read, the most important thing is that 4 genetically unique cells are formed from one dividing cell...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I don't want to give you "the talk" and explain sexual reproduction in too much detail here, as I really don't know how old you are or if you've been given "the talk" already, so I'll leave that part up to you. Let us just note that the cell that ultimately fertilizes the egg is a result of... chance? Probability? Randomness, as you would call it. So, theoretically, a human could pass on the same genetic information from a neanderthal 100% of the time if the genes that belonged to neanderthal were the ones that entered the gamete.

Now, I've also made the claim that I've partially answered your question before. How dare I do so, as I have not provided evidence... Wait, here it is.
It's that whole concept of geographic isolation and reproduction. If there is not a lot of genetic diversity in a population, they will interbreed passing the same traits throughout the population. Incidentally, this is again how speciation would occur, and it is partially responsible for the appearance of mutations such as blue eyes in small populations.

Now I do apologize for this long post, I'm long winded and I could have slimmed it down, but you can't expect the best teacher for free, right?

Regards,
Hydeman
even if every homosapian was paired with a Neanderthal and the child gets 90% of his or her DNA from the Neanderthal, still can't end up with a wopping 2% DNA from Neanderthal!!!!!!! After 1000 generations from the end of the Neanderthal!!!!!


I'm afraid that this proves my point. Can't/won't be bothered to learn new facts that might threaten his viewpoint.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Ah, I think I see where your confusion is coming from now. Apologies, I can be dense sometimes.

You seem to be confused about probability in general. Yes, you certainly share less genetic material with your great grandfather than you do your father. But how does one inherit genetic material? Think of genes like a bag of marbles... To use your example, we have 9 red marbles and one blue marble (red representing neanderthal DNA). Say I want to randomly pick 5 marbles out of this bag (to make a haploid cell). I have a much higher probability of selecting red marbles than blue marbles, don't I? Now lets make another haploid cell for the other parent using the same 9:1 ratio. Well, there exists a good chance that I select 5 red marbles on both sides, yes? So, I can actually create offspring with more red marbles than the parents (this is analogous to certain recessive traits...).

Of course, nothing in nature is this simple, I understand that, and have provided information on it. But the main idea to take away from this is that you never destroy the genetics (marbles). They can be passed along indefinitely as long as they are the genetics that go into the gamete that fertilizes the other gamete. If populations become isolated geographically, they reproduce with each other, meaning their genetics become closer and closer to one another in said population. You can theoretically keep passing the neanderthal traits around. This is seen by the variation in neanderthal DNA percentages in different human populations.

To conclude, it isn't just the percentage of DNA that is passed on, it is what genetic information is passed on in those percentages.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
How is your unaccepted explanation explain that all humans have Neanderthal DNA and it's 3% ineuroppeans 2% in Chinese and 1% in Africans!?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Sir, others have become persuaded that you are a troll. I certainly do not think so, as I have looked at some of your other posts. I certainly think that you believe what you say, so I will continue for a little longer.


My explanation is a broad generalization of how probability and genetic inheritance work. If you wish to argue that mathematics is wrong, you will end up screaming like a madman at a brick wall, because I simply cannot understand how you think a logical construct is wrong...

Probability is the answer you seek. I've demonstrated one instance of a two parents giving birth to a child of 10 red marbles (100% neanderthal). Now try to imagine the other possibilities. 4 red 1 blue on each side, creating 80% neanderthal. Then continue this chain of probabilities, sometimes increasing the offspring's neanderthal DNA by the method described in my first post (by taking all red marbles) and losing neanderthal DNA (by getting some blue marbles). Different populations, Europeans, Asians, Africans, have different percentages because of probabilities and geographic isolation. It is math that you are arguing against.

The facts are simple. We can observe the DNA. We know it is there. We see that it is different in different populations. We understand genetic inheritance. We understand the process of gamete cell production... How can you explain this phenomena without math and without closing your eyes and asserting it does not exist?

Regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I really do admire your patience.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Mr Handyman
You explained you're not into paleantology or DNA but you are geologist and you are not evolutionist.
I am calling on all evolutionists who have DNA degrees to defend their fraud here.
I don't believe that not even one evolutionist is expert in DNA geneology ancestry science.
They're hiding but I can wait. Just to show you how weak their lies are nobody is coming forward.!!



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
OP.. I gave you a flag simply because you told us and put out there what you BELIEVE.

I commend anyone for stating their belief. It takes courage...

And... aside from that, it is limitless as to what, who, where, and how it all began, and in what order.

Everyone will believe what they are shaped ( by our personality, Universe and everything in it ) to believe. Its per our "soul chart" or blueprint if you will, embedded in our DNA , or so I believe.
Even "Jesus" had a soul chart. He told us that much in writings... and so did other great thinkers and peace makers. They had a "purpose" ...as we all do.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Mr Handyman
You explained you're not into paleantology or DNA but you are geologist and you are not evolutionist.
I am calling on all evolutionists who have DNA degrees to defend their fraud here.
I don't believe that not even one evolutionist is expert in DNA geneology ancestry science.
They're hiding but I can wait. Just to show you how weak their lies are nobody is coming forward.!!


Condemned out of your own mouth. "Fraud", "evolutionist", "weak", "lies". There's no point in debating you. You are completely convinced that evolution is some kind of fraud. It's not, it's based on science. It's based on evidence. It's based on things that you seem to despise. Fair enough. It's a free universe. If you want to believe in 101 myths then you can - we're not stopping you. But if you really think that you're some kind of crusader for the truth I have some news for you: you're not. You are simply someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, who actually dismisses facts. It's not our fault that you have your fingers in your ears and are screaming at the top of your lungs in the vain hope that everyone will look at you and think that you are some kind of genius for seeing what others cannot.
So - no, there's no point in debating you. You're not worth debating. You will not or simply cannot accept facts that go against your fixed, immovable and archaic world view. Science is a closed book to you.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The debate is open for people who know DNA. It was one question and nobody answered it yet.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

Allow me to clarify further. I do accept the theory of evolution as fact. I am into paleontology. Currently, I am spending my free time (that I don't spend on ATS of course.
) collecting phacopid trilobites (and more excitingly what I believed to be a few members of the order Lichida) from a thin layer of rock dated to be from the Middle Devonian, about 410 mya. Interestingly enough, I live in PA, and the same fossil genera that I am finding are found in New York, Oklahoma, and Morocco in similarly aged strata. Of course, as the continents drifted apart, these populations of trilobite became increasingly more isolated from one another, creating genetic pockets that allowed for speciation in later ancestors found in later strata. So, you see, evolution is quite crucial to what I am currently doing with what I am currently doing in my free time.

But I see perhaps you have subtly answered me, and perhaps I was mistaken. I see that I cannot take your challenge, so I bid you farewell.

Sincere regards,
Mr. Handyman



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I did warn you. The OP will not - or perhaps just cannot - listen to cites, or evidence, or anything that goes against his worldview that evolution is some form of fraud. Best to step away and keep it mind when you see the OP commenting on similar threads. He lives under a bridge.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: adnanmuf

With all due respect, hydeman11 has indeed answered your question very thoroughly.

"Knowing" DNA isn't actually very hard, and doesn't need a doctorate biologist, as you seem to want. Your question is very basic, and is something a 10 year old child might ask in science class. It's a fairly simple set of rules that we've understood for thousands of years... even before we knew what DNA was... and the answer is well known and used on a daily basis by gardeners.

It's why farmers have been using selective breeding for as long as we have had agriculture, and created better produce as a result.

I'll give it one last try though...

You asked; "How can humans have up to 3% DNA related to Neanderthals?... and different population groups have different amounts of Neanderthal DNA?"

The answer is that it's not a direct 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, etc. transfer through the generations. It's based on probability, but also on "shared genetic material" that the parents may pass on to their children (if both parents have the same sequence, it will likely be passed on, especially in small isolated populations... eg. 20%, 18%, 19%, 18%, 15%, 18%... etc).

Even if after 10 generations the percentage of Neanderthal does fall below 5%, all that is needed is one person, from parents each with less than 5% Neanderthal DNA, to be born with a load of recessive traits and their child may have 10% Neanderthal DNA again... more than either of their parents.

If graphed, gene distribution is not a straight line tending towards 0, it is a bumpy curve that can go down and up depending on a range of factors.

It’s why even after 1000 generations, there is still up to 3% Neanderthal DNA in human populations.

Simple.

;-j



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Not possible because all humans have the Neanderthal DNA not just few of them!



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Not possible because all humans have the Neanderthal DNA not just few of them!
l do agree that life started 400 million years ago but that is no proof that animals evolved from animals. All animals are created anew by god



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join