New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Why must I evolve to your way of thinking when you can not admit to the faults in your own way of thinking...

You haven't given anything but your baseless opinion on the claims I've made. Perhaps if you present citation that backs up your claims, then I can indeed admit I was wrong in my original statements? So far you haven't presented any such citations, so your claims are unfounded.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Gravity is due to the curvature of space by massive objects and pushes you down it does not pull you from its center...

You're free to make a topic on the matter and I will discuss it there so we don't fall from the OP any farther

I am myself...
You are you...
Those are facts they are undeniable without any other possibility...
Figure it out...
Theory is not fact by definition that is not Baseless it is a fact...
Anyway I'm out feel free to insult my feeble mind while I'm gone...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I am myself...
You are you...
Those are facts they are undeniable without any other possibility...
Figure it out...
Theory is not fact by definition that is not Baseless it is a fact...
Anyway I'm out feel free to insult my feeble mind while I'm gone...

So no citations then? Embracing of Ignorance? Alright, got it

a reply to: Ghost147

Heh
I didn't offer to hug you...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Heh
I didn't offer to hug you...

As expected. Rejection, such as the actions you take on the acceptance of reality, does seem to be more of your strong suit.

Perhaps when you decide to substantiate your claims and open up a thread on how everyone and all of science is wrong about Gravity (among other facts of nature), and how your concept of how it functions is more accurate, I will be more willing to hug someone with that level of close-mindedness

Until then....

Which is more likely...

Natural evolution leading to the modern human, or natural genetic mutations, or genetic alterations by design?

Perhaps YOU are as much creation as a product of evolution?

Your higher brain functions, and your consciousness are not entirely natural, but are the result of enhanced genetics?

Nah, you're really just a highly evolved ape...

originally posted by: ausername
Which is more likely...

Natural evolution leading to the modern human, or natural genetic mutations,

These two are the same thing

originally posted by: ausername
or genetic alterations by design?

Could be possible. However, we haven't found anything to suggest this was the case, but it could very well be possible.

originally posted by: ausername
Your higher brain functions, and your consciousness are not entirely natural, but are the result of enhanced genetics?

We see higher brain functionality and consciousness in other species as well. Again, it could be due to an external involvement, just not necessary or probable

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Heh
I didn't offer to hug you...

Hu ha
That was very clever

Best post I have seen in a while

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Teddy916

Heh your a typical evolution lover...
I'll tell you what soon as man evolves into something greater than man..
or you can find a way to convince me evolution and creationism are the same thing save your breath...

There is no "greater". There is merely change in a population. Evolution doesn't have some pinnacle to reach. Adaptations to one environment can be disadvantageous or advantageous. This proves there is no end goal. It is only a process.

It always baffles me when scientists consider flat curves in models vs the wobble or oscillation that tends to happen in reality.

Nothing is constant, not even the rate of change. The fact that this isn't the basis of scientific thought, while supported by empricism, just seems silly.

a reply to: Ghost147

"Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with probabilities. Nothing in science is considered absolute..."

"We know evolution is a fact, which is why it would be pointless to bring it up. "

These statements contradict each other.

Here is your statement, which exemplifies the ridiculous thought process used to believe in evolution.
"We don't need fossils to show that Evolution is evident. All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation" Bwahahahhaaaaaaa.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You make a more than valid point. It's one of the downsides of a science like Anthropology or Paleontology being spread across several disciplines from biology to genetics that compartmentalizes some types of thought. I think that overall though, when one of the biggest influences on evolutionary change is selection pressure or in some cases the lack thereof, constant mutation rates aren't really the crux of the work being done. It's more about averages over the long term as opposed to charting a constant. It's why I qualified my earlier comments with "if" the research and data pans out. It's the beauty of peer review, it's the scientific equivalent of checks and balances. No one study is ever the definitive answer or end game, it's always the starting point.

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Ghost147

"Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with probabilities. Nothing in science is considered absolute..."

"We know evolution is a fact, which is why it would be pointless to bring it up. "

These statements contradict each other.

No they don't, facts are observations and they are not absolutes.

Here is your statement, which exemplifies the ridiculous thought process used to believe in evolution.
"We don't need fossils to show that Evolution is evident. All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation" Bwahahahhaaaaaaa.

The fact that any fossils exist is amazing, but even if they didn't there's enough evidence for evolution for it to be evident such as 'reproduction with variation'...

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Ghost147

"Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with probabilities. Nothing in science is considered absolute..."

"We know evolution is a fact, which is why it would be pointless to bring it up. "

These statements contradict each other.

Here is your statement, which exemplifies the ridiculous thought process used to believe in evolution.
"We don't need fossils to show that Evolution is evident. All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation" Bwahahahhaaaaaaa.

It scares me when people poke at each other or certain individuals who are known for rebutting in a big lecture format
Get ready for a big lecture coming your way
Be warned

originally posted by: Ghost147
All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation.

Reproduction with variation does not prove either end of the argument. An intelligent designer who is creating the genetic code would give the organisms adaptative mechanisms. If anything, the ability for organisms to adapt in their lifetime is indicative of a fore-thinking creator, rather than a trial-and-error (evolution) mechanism. Trial and error mechanisms wouldn't "pocket" adaptation mechanisms just in case some sort of hitherto unseen calamity strikes.

originally posted by: cooperton
Reproduction with variation does not prove either end of the argument. An intelligent designer who is creating the genetic code would give the organisms adaptative mechanisms.

While 'Reproduction with variation' is all that's required for evolution to be evident, there's also a lot more evidence for common descent via natural processes and there's no evidence for the claims of a supernatural designer.

If anything, the ability for organisms to adapt in their lifetime is indicative of a fore-thinking creator, rather than a trial-and-error (evolution) mechanism. Trial and error mechanisms wouldn't "pocket" adaptation mechanisms just in case some sort of hitherto unseen calamity strikes.

A 'fore-thinking creator' that got it so wrong that 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now extinct? and continue to go extinct every single day?.....

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Ghost147

"Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with probabilities. Nothing in science is considered absolute..."

"We know evolution is a fact, which is why it would be pointless to bring it up. "

These statements contradict each other.

No, they do not. Evolution isn't science, it's a naturally occurring phenomena. Gravity isn't science, it's a naturally occurring phenomena. The shape of the Earth isn't science, it's a naturally occurring phenomena. Atoms aren't science, it's a naturally occurring phenomena. These are all facts.

Our description on how they function, such as the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Relativity, or Atomic Theory, or the Heliocentric Theory, is what science is.

It is why Evolution is both a fact, and a theory.

It is why Gravity is both a fact, and a theory.

Please read through more comments within the thread, this has been discussed a number of times.

originally posted by: KEACHI
a reply to: Ghost147
Here is your statement, which exemplifies the ridiculous thought process used to believe in evolution.
"We don't need fossils to show that Evolution is evident. All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation" Bwahahahhaaaaaaa.

Here's the definition of Evolution:

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

We don't need fossils to show that this occurs. Fossils help provide evidence of specific lineages, but they are not necessary to prove Evolution.

If you have any further questions or issues with the Theory of Evolution, please Ask them in this topic so we don't go off topic in this thread any longer.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It scares me when people poke at each other or certain individuals who are known for rebutting in a big lecture format
Get ready for a big lecture coming your way
Be warned

On the contrary, I welcome such individuals to a discussion.

However, he can post any further questions or issues with the Theory of Evolution within this topic so we don't go off topic in this thread any longer.

originally posted by: cooperton
Reproduction with variation does not prove either end of the argument. An intelligent designer who is creating the genetic code would give the organisms adaptative mechanisms. If anything, the ability for organisms to adapt in their lifetime is indicative of a fore-thinking creator, rather than a trial-and-error (evolution) mechanism.

Prezbo369 answers this issue quite well.

It makes no difference if there is some kind of divine intervention in the start of life on earth. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, but on what occurs to life once it's already here. The evidence that supports the theory of evolution which suggests Reproduction with variation as being the cause of for genetic diversity is one of the single most evidence-backed theories in science. The OP's article is about mutation rate, and mutation rate is essentially the very definition of Reproduction with Variation.

If there's some 'designer' out there guiding mutations in a specific path, then sure, that can exist. There is nothing to suggest there isn't one.

However, if you're claiming that life started only a couple thousand years ago, along side everything else, then every single observation we see in nature goes against this claim. Even the existence of the light we see and gravity disprove that notion.

originally posted by: cooperton
Trial and error mechanisms wouldn't "pocket" adaptation mechanisms just in case some sort of hitherto unseen calamity strikes.

Nothing in evolution suggests that adaptations go dormant for the sake of a random environmental event, in which they appear again to help the organism survive. If that's what you were trying to depict.

originally posted by: Ghost147

Nothing in evolution suggests that adaptations go dormant for the sake of a random environmental event, in which they appear again to help the organism survive. If that's what you were trying to depict.

I think this really digs deep into the low probability that evolutionary mechanisms would have to persist through:

For example, humans can go to high elevations and "2,3-BPG" in their blood allows them to adjust to the varying degree of air quality at high altitudes. Why would all humans have this? Assuming an evolutionary model, this would imply that our entire ancestry went through a phase of high elevation habitation in which enough time passed to generate this favorable mutation (lucky them!). How long would it have taken them suffering in high altitudes until this chance mutation would occur that would generate the exact Chemical formula required to allow high elevation adaptation. Not only that, but it would also have to be wired to a feedback mechanism, so it would only come into effect when said organism was in high elevation. In other words, it would have been more likely if such a high-elevation adaptation would have essentially geographically doomed them to live in high elevation indefinitely because such a required mechanism would likely not arise that allowed them to equilibrate back to lower elevations. Also, it would have to be released in the perfect amount, not too much and not too little. If one hopeful 2,3-BPG aspiring hominid seeking a more fit blood circulation for high elevation were to have mutated the possibility of 2,3-BPG into his genome, it would be useless if the expression of these gene were too much or too little . And timing? The epigenetic mechanism for when to express 2,3-BPG would also have to arise simultaneously with this mutation. But, against all odds, 2,3-BPG, the perfect biochemical for dynamic elevation adaptation is present in ALL humans and released when necessary in the perfect amounts.

Now, consider the same unlikelihood of perfect gene adaptation for EVERY human-unique adaptive mechanism that the human has.