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.

 

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

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It is difficult to understand how, seeing all the genetic drift that has occured just during mans recorded history, one could find contention with the general gist put forth by evolution as a theory. Its not like human camps were encircled by packs of roving wolves that looked suspiciously like pugs. And I can guarantee that if you enjoy beef and milk, you seriously appreciated the genetic drift that animal husbandry created in the auroch.

When you stack up the "intelligent designer" with "evolution", the only thing I can say for certain: one of the 2 arguments has at least evidence to support it. The other does not.
edit on 2/4/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton
I can guarantee that if you enjoy beef and milk, you seriously appreciated the genetic drift that animal husbandry created in the auroch


I wonder if digesting milk products past infancy was present before we started drinking milk during adulthood. I would assume epigenetic mechanisms were fine-tuned to be able to essentially say "ok, this milk stuff is coming back again, time to express lactase". Cooked meat is a different story. This may have been what the Hebrews were doing with burnt offerings, because surely cooked food is unique to the human experience (barring their pets).




When you stack up the "intelligent designer" with "evolution", the only thing I can say for certain: one of the 2 arguments has at least evidence to support it. The other does not.


I see a lot of people saying that certain observable concepts with genetics prove evolutionary theory. But an intuitive genetic code would be present with intelligent design. The greatest evidence I see for such design, besides the fact that we literally have intelligible coding within us, is our mathematical proportions that approximate phi; which is an irrational number, and therefor inherently harbors an infinitude of data. The phalanges and metacarpals in our hand, our hand to our forearm; the floor to our belly button to the top of our head, and much much more... All in phi proportions. Phi is everywhere, Plato loved this stuff, and attributed it to the Logos, or Reason of the universe.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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


I am more than happy to answer this within this topic about questions and the validity of evolution

If you copy and paste your comment there, I'll respond to it.

The OP has nothing to do with the content within your post. Please stay on topic.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

That is a poor piece of evidence for intelligent design. Mostly because seeing phi encoded into various elements of humanity is wholly logical, given we are a product of a universe that seems to have found homeostasis within phi.

Things happen that, while apparently improbable, are not evidence of a hand of God.



That doesn't mean there is no God. Or that He wouldn't do His part to make sure the universe was set to run "just so". Only that there isn't anything that stands as evidence of such.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton
I can guarantee that if you enjoy beef and milk, you seriously appreciated the genetic drift that animal husbandry created in the auroch


I wonder if digesting milk products past infancy was present before we started drinking milk during adulthood. I would assume epigenetic mechanisms were fine-tuned to be able to essentially say "ok, this milk stuff is coming back again, time to express lactase". Cooked meat is a different story. This may have been what the Hebrews were doing with burnt offerings, because surely cooked food is unique to the human experience (barring their pets).




When you stack up the "intelligent designer" with "evolution", the only thing I can say for certain: one of the 2 arguments has at least evidence to support it. The other does not.


I see a lot of people saying that certain observable concepts with genetics prove evolutionary theory. But an intuitive genetic code would be present with intelligent design. The greatest evidence I see for such design, besides the fact that we literally have intelligible coding within us, is our mathematical proportions that approximate phi; which is an irrational number, and therefor inherently harbors an infinitude of data. The phalanges and metacarpals in our hand, our hand to our forearm; the floor to our belly button to the top of our head, and much much more... All in phi proportions. Phi is everywhere, Plato loved this stuff, and attributed it to the Logos, or Reason

The milk concept you put forth does not ezplain why specific populations are lactose intolerant and others have the appropriate enzymes to break it down.
edit on 4-2-2016 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: cooperton

That is a poor piece of evidence for intelligent design. Mostly because seeing phi encoded into various elements of humanity is wholly logical, given we are a product of a universe that seems to have found homeostasis within phi.

Things happen that, while apparently improbable, are not evidence of a hand of God.



That doesn't mean there is no God. Or that He wouldn't do His part to make sure the universe was set to run "just so". Only that there isn't anything that stands as evidence of such.


Its like the bible code nonsense years back. You could take moby dick and get the same phrases showing up. Phi is even more probable since it is a mathematical concept and it is not surprising to see it show up.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What would constitute verifiable evidence for the hand of god?

I suppose it could be helpful if we had some sort of scientific explanation for what god is, but this, I imagine, is not forthcoming anytime soon. Because, frankly, where would one begin? Do we look for a man in a bright white robe with a long white beard?

When someone invokes or "sees" god, or some other body part of his/hers, as the cause for all the order we see around us, what exactly are they invoking? Is there something tangible there? This is what I have trouble with. I don't mind that someone is convinced that life and order and universal phi is all the work of god, but when I try to understand that logically, I run into a road block... because ultimately I find myself asking "What is god?" If there was a way to quantify it scientifically or mathematically, would we? Could we?

With that said, I am convinced that there is something else that is currently not being accounted for through our current scientific exploration. To me, the fact that life actually works the way it does; that I can think the way I do; move around at will; and be aware of it all, is beyond logic. How in the world can all of this work, and continue to do so? Why is life so ordered, and not just some blobby mess. Where does the extreme fidelity come from? I mean, really, we're just a bunch of cells all working together. But somehow this was all put together blindly and randomly, absent intelligence...
edit on 4-2-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I suppose it could be helpful if we had some sort of scientific explanation for what god is, but this, I imagine, is not forthcoming anytime soon. Because, frankly, where would one begin? Do we look for a man in a bright white robe with a long white beard?


Science only deals with natural phenomena. Not supernatural. Considering Gods are supernatural, Science will never have a say on a general terminology of a god because gods do not exist in the natural realm (according to many religions).


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
When someone invokes or "sees" god, or some other body part of his/hers, as the cause for all the order we see around us, what exactly are they invoking? Is there something tangible there?


No, absolutely not. Subjective observation is inherently flawed because there are too many external factors that intrude on a person in order to process information.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
With that said, I am convinced that there is something else that is currently not being accounted for through our current scientific exploration. To me, the fact that life actually works the way it does; that I can think the way I do; move around at will; and be aware of it all, is beyond logic. How in world can all of this work, and continue to do so? Why is life so ordered, and not just some blobby mess.


Biology and Evolution explains how


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Where does the extreme fidelity come from? I mean, really, we're all just a bunch of cells all working together. But somehow this was all put together blindly and randomly, absent intelligence...


Yes, and research in biology and biological evolution explains how such phenomena occur and originate


If you want to learn more about it you're free to inquire within this topic



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

I wonder if digesting milk products past infancy was present before we started drinking milk during adulthood. I would assume epigenetic mechanisms were fine-tuned to be able to essentially say "ok, this milk stuff is coming back again, time to express lactase". Cooked meat is a different story. This may have been what the Hebrews were doing with burnt offerings, because surely cooked food is unique to the human experience (barring their pets).


There is no evidence at all of Lactase Persistence demonstrating an epigenetic association and plenty of evidence that it has instead appeared independently at least 4 times and is associated with specific alleles in each of these episodes of convergent evolution. Each instance of Lactase Persistence has also been associated with specific animal husbandry events. In Central Europe, which is likely the first instance of Lactase Persistence becoming population wide based on current genetic data, the Lactase Persistence very clearly appeared alongside increased domestication and husbandry of cattle as well as the time and location of origin of the Linearbandkeramik or Linear Pottery, which is itself associated with an increase in cattle usage. This occurred ~7500 BP.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
Science only deals with natural phenomena. Not supernatural. Considering Gods are supernatural, Science will never have a say on a general terminology of a god because gods do not exist in the natural realm

Fair enough.


originally posted by: Ghost147
No, absolutely not. Subjective observation is inherently flawed because there are too many external factors that intrude on a person in order to process information.

But science comes from subjective observation, as long as humans and their instruments are involved. No scientific explanation is beyond that of a human derived one, which makes it inherently subjective.



originally posted by: Ghost147
Biology and Evolution explains how

Not adequately enough in my opinion. But this is only because we are still learning, and our current 'understanding" changing, as it always does.


originally posted by: Ghost147
Yes, and research in biology and biological evolution explains how such phenomena occur and originate

Refer to my answer above.


If you want to learn more about it you're free to inquire within this topic

Thanks for the invite, Ghost. I've been by there. Still not satisfied.
edit on 4-2-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2016 by PhotonEffect because: first grade grammar



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
But science comes from subjective observation, as long as humans and their instruments are involved. No scientific explanation is beyond that of a human derived one, which makes it inherently subjective.


No, science is founded on objective observation. We can't see atoms with our own eyes, or the vast majority of stars and galaxies in the universe. Nor can we really measure things such as gravity without objective means. We simply cannot process or measure these things without objective means. Furthermore, we can cross reference other information to help form conclusions on particular phenomena, which would be another form of objective reasoning.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Not adequately enough in my opinion. But this is only because we are still learning, and our current 'understanding" changing, as it always does.


And it always will change. Science doesn't deal with absolutes because it acknowledges we cannot possibly know everything. Nothing in science is permanent because of this, our theories and hypotheses are based off of our current observation, subject to change upon further discovery.

Perhaps you only hold this opinion because you do not yet know enough about the subject (that's not meant to be insulting). Again, I can explain further in the previously linked thread that is more geared towards the validity and accuracy within the Theory of Evolution. I welcome you to present your argument there if you'd like to further discuss the matter


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Thanks for the invite, Ghost. I've been by there. Still not satisfied.


Perhaps you should bring up the particular issues you have with it then?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
No, science is founded on objective observation.

I would expect an answer like this from a person who regularly employs the scientific method.

Ultimately, though, subjective entities must interpret the data acquired from said observation - be it from the senses and/or instruments - and supply meaning to it. Human meaning. Remember, a human is only a term we've made for ourselves. We don't actually know what we are, objectively, so how could we know what everything else is, objectively, or simply beyond our own ascribed meaning to it?


Perhaps you only hold this opinion because you do not yet know enough about the subject (that's not meant to be insulting). Again, I can explain further in the previously linked thread that is more geared towards the validity and accuracy within the Theory of Evolution.

I concede that this is entirely possible, but if you're referring to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise known as the Modern Synthesis, then I'm afraid we'll be starting from different sides of the field. But I'll find time to circle back to your thread for a more appropriate and on topic discussion. Cheers~



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Ultimately, though, subjective entities must interpret the data acquired from said observation


Absolutely correct. However, that subjectivity weakens more and more as the number of experiments, calculations and conclusions confirm the original hypothesis; which is why the two are not even remotely comparative in their degree of accuracy.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
We don't actually know what we are, objectively, so how could we know what everything else is, objectively, or simply beyond our own ascribed meaning to it?


We don't, nor did I suggest we did. However, my point still stands that the accuracy of a purely subjective observation is far inferior to objective observation.


originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I concede that this is entirely possible, but if you're referring to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise known as the Modern Synthesis, then I'm afraid we'll be starting from different sides of the field. But I'll find time to circle back to your thread for a more appropriate and on topic discussion. Cheers~


alright, sounds good



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Some branches of science are based on subjective observation
There is nothing objective about studying bones

Evolution has never been observed, maybe a fly turning into a fly is evolution but no different from a person overcoming lactose intolerance, something that has been observed
Evolution is not objective.
This thread goes some way to prove ir

The assumption made in the OP is made to answer an issue that causes an obstacle to the theory of evolution.
No direct evidence is observed
That is subjective



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Some branches of science are based on subjective observation
There is nothing objective about studying bones

Evolution has never been observed, maybe a fly turning into a fly is evolution but no different from a person overcoming lactose intolerance, something that has been observed
Evolution is not objective.
This thread goes some way to prove ir

The assumption made in the OP is made to answer an issue that causes an obstacle to the theory of evolution.
No direct evidence is observed
That is subjective


All these points have been addressed in this thread. Feel free to inquire more on them there



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

I would expect an answer like this from a person who regularly employs the scientific method.

Ultimately, though, subjective entities must interpret the data acquired from said observation - be it from the senses and/or instruments - and supply meaning to it. Human meaning. Remember, a human is only a term we've made for ourselves. We don't actually know what we are, objectively, so how could we know what everything else is, objectively, or simply beyond our own ascribed meaning to it?


I don't think that what you're driving at is an invalid point. One can not remove the inherent humanity, from a human observer. And this does sometimes include inherent biases. Conversely though, this is one of the most important reasons why the process of peer review is critical.

I realize that a lot of lay people get the impression that peer review is just some giant circle jerk amongst professionals. What needs to be pointed out though is that competition amongst those same professionals, and let's not forget the ego of the ever present human element, is what makes peer review actually work.

For example, if I write a paper and submit it to a journal, it is reviewed by other professionals in my field or related fields to verify the veracity of my data prior to publication. That is however, only the first step of review. Once the paper is published, others are going to take my data and attempt to replicate and further verify my results. Still others will scour my data for errors and flaws, they will write rebuttals dissecting my work, the data and my conclusions to point out the flaws if they were to exist.

This entire process goes back and forth, sometimes for years. This back and forth is in fact very beneficial because despite my wounded ego, or perhaps because of it, I'm going to go back and attempt to provide better and more conclusive data to support my hypothesis. One of the most prominent examples of this was overturning the decades old paradigm of 'Clovis First' regarding the first human inhabitants of the Americas.

Another example from personal experience would be, what was at the time, a hypothetical admixture between Neanderthal and H. Sapiens Sapiens. What stalled the work in the late 90's was the ability and the cost constraints related to genetic mapping. By a decade ago, people like Francis Collins and the Human Genome Project were beginning to do groundbreaking work mapping the entire human genetic code. This led to the Neanderthal Genome Project and some amazing work by Svante Paabo. The end result was absolute genetic proof that modern humans and Neanderthal had in fact mated successfully and passed on some of their genetic code.

In huge end, sure, some aspects of scientific inquiry can be subjective in nature. But there are checks and balances in place that at the end of the day, eliminate the element of subjectivity.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

No Ghost
They have not been addressed anywhere

You may have dabbled at an answer and tried to dazzle others with words but
Objectively you have never addressed these issues in any way shape or form

Smoke and mirrors, flash bangs are not answers. Multiple words and lengthy boring posts are not answers.
You might fool all the Clinton voters but the reality is these issues have not been addressed



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147

No Ghost
They have not been addressed anywhere

You may have dabbled at an answer and tried to dazzle others with words but
Objectively you have never addressed these issues in any way shape or form

Smoke and mirrors, flash bangs are not answers. Multiple words and lengthy boring posts are not answers.
You might fool all the Clinton voters but the reality is these issues have not been addressed


Alright, then you're free to ask them in the appropriate thread where those claims would be on-topic, I can answer them there.


Here's the link again



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

There is no evidence at all of Lactase Persistence demonstrating an epigenetic association and plenty of evidence that it has instead appeared independently at least 4 times and is associated with specific alleles


If what you say is true, that's fascinating. So rather than turning back on the lactase gene that was active during infancy, there is another gene that also codes for lactase that activates post-infancy? This seems redundant and counter-intuitive, why not just have an epigenetic mechanism to reactive the lactase gene that was active during infancy? Please present the source for this information so we can discuss it further.


originally posted by: Cypress
Phi is even more probable since it is a mathematical concept and it is not surprising to see it show up.


Key word is concept. "Concept" is defined as an idea or a notion... The fact that there are any "concepts" in nature indicate an intelligent thought behind it, rather than long periods of randomness to beget order (concepts). Especially since phi has an infinitude of information within it, it seems unlikely that randomness could create such beautiful complexity. Would a hurricane in a junkyard create anything intelligible? Obviously this "proves" nothing, but rather points the thinker in the direction of Reason, which Plato called the Logos.
edit on 4-2-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You wont address them
You will answer the questions in a manner that appeases your own curiosity level, a level that is 100% accepting of evolution

I am sorry Ghost but you are a fervent religious believer in evolution, a fundamentalist card carrying, hand waving, money paying acolyte.
You dont have the capacity to answer my questions because you are as fundamentalist as a wesboro baptist loon.
Difference is you are an evolutionist, there is no concept, no questions in your mind.
You are not impartial, you cant answer questions when you drink the cool aid, you dont accept questions when you pour the cool aid.

You lecture everyone about how brainwashed others are yet dont see the TOTAL dedication you have

Truthfully I dont see any reason to discuss anything with someone so totally be-spelled by such nonsense

You are not and do not possess the truth



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join