Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Akragon

You do realize that evolution was imagined or conjured up by an angry old man in hopes to deceive his wife and children who believed in God right?
You do realize that all the crap he spewed has been proven false right?
The really retarded thing is evolution will never predate creation and any form of evolution is only possible because of creation...
Creation and evolution are obvious 2 different things yet creation will always supersede evolution and or evolution would need creation to ever be possible...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: cooperton

I believe Neanderthal are not only falsely portrayed as modern mans inferior but that they are portrayed as such rather purposefully... When in fact they were superior in various aspects...
The Bible eludes to the fact that mankind suffered a number of setbacks not progressions especially genetically... The teachings also point to the longevity which was once enjoyed by man when God would no longer suffer any man for more than 125 years or what ever it was... Now this brings me back to Neanderthal and his pronounced brow ridge... Did you know that your brow grows ever so slightly throughout your lifetime?
Now that's food for thought...

You're confusing pop culture portrayals of Neanderthal with how we portray them in Paleoanthropology. They're well known and well described in multiple papers and journals. We know that they had their own culture, buried their dead, made tools that were superior to the lithic tools carried by Homo Sapiens when the 2 first met in the Levant, they practiced medicine, cared for the elderly and the injured well enough that there are examples of Neanderthal surviving amputated limbs, painted their bodies and the dead, buried them with grave goods and so much more.

As for the brow ridge, the juveniles and young adults also have a supraorbital ridge so it's not a trait of an elderly H. Sapiens. There are far too many morphological traits not shared by both HSS and HN so no, Neanderthal are not some biblical 200, 300 or 400 year olds from a time when humans lived 900 years. Do our chins magically recede with age too?

There's also a difference in morphology in H. Sapiens who lived in East Africa prior to leaving the continent and heading into Europe and Asia and the H. Sapiens morphology after the engaged in admixture with Neanderthal. What about Homo Antecessor? homo Naledi? Denisovans? How do you fit them into your narrative?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You do realize that evolution was imagined or conjured up by an angry old man in hopes to deceive his wife and children who believed in God right?

Haang on... i need another beer too!

a reply to: peter vlar

Actually your chin does not recede with age but your jaw bone changes due to bone resorbsion which does make it appear to recede...
As for the rest of your statement it's as much speculation as anything I have said...
Aside from the little tidbits you provided...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

Actually your chin does not recede with age but your jaw bone changes due to bone resorbsion which does make it appear to recede...

I was being facetious and no, the jawbone doesn't appear to recede in H. Sapiens

As for the rest of your statement it's as much speculation as anything I have said...
Aside from the little tidbits you provided...

Really? What exactly was speculative? That juveniles and young adults had a supraorbital ridge? Not speculative, it's a fact.

That your view on Neanderthal is informed by pop culture and isn't the same way that they are described and understood by the Paleoanthropologists who actually study them? This too is a fact.

That they buried their dead, with grave goods and painted their bodies? This is also a fact. They also liked to put flowers in the graves as well btw

That Mousterian lithics were superior to those of the earliest H. Sapiens who left Africa? This again is a fact.

Perhaps you take umbrage with their caring for the elderly and infirm? This too is a fact. When an elderly Neanderthal is so riddled with arthritis that they can't hunt for themselves that means someone else is bringing them food. This is a fact. Amputated limbs? We know they survived the amputation because the bone at the amputation site had healed. That means they survived long enough for that to occur. That means someone cared for and fed them. So it's a fact. Not speculation.

Or maybe you're disputing the morphological differences between African H. Sapiens prior to OOA and the H. Sapiens morphology after admixture? This too is easily discernible in the fossil record.

And you haven't described how Denisovans, Homo Naledi, Homo Antecessor, Floresiensis or any of the other members of our genus who all coexisted fit into your narrative.

a reply to: peter vlar
If you are alone and oh I don't know cut off your arm because it was stuck in something let's say... Then you care for it yourself would you starve to death or use your other arm to feed yourself? Would you not heal if you rested?
I'm not saying they didn't care for each other just showing how that point you made is purely speculative...
I'm not interested in promoting your hobbit hope's those funny little monkeys you have your hopes set upon will fall like so many others...
Now the others could also fit into the narrative of the Bible especially the book of Enoch...
But I wouldn't want to bore you...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Akragon

this isn't the place for it though... didn't i just say God does not factor into science?

Just keep searching. No one should ever be satisfied with a theory claiming they are the meaningless ancestors of mutant apes, it is a philosophical dead end.

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Werner Heisenberg

Coop, I don't know where you get this "meaningless ancestors of mutant apes" stuff. We have a common ancestor - GENETICALLY.

Please consider this question and I really would appreciate an answer since you do know something about science:

You are a scientist on a mission to a new planet. Your job is to research any life on the planet and outline your initial observations for further research.

You land on the planet. It's teaming with life, not necessarily like life on Earth.

You begin to take your samples.

You go back to the lab and start your analysis. You isolate the DNA, run it up on gels, make a chromatogram etc. Then you select 100 samples which you collected on the planet and compared their genetic profile. You find that approximately 85-90% of the profiles match.

Question:

What is your first observation? Note I did not say "conclusion" because more work has to be done. But your first observation is how you will design further experiments.

So what is it? What is the first thing you would say about the samples taken from Planet Nibiru?

Please answer the question honestly.

a reply to: 5StarOracle.

Then who buried him? He buried himself? With one arm? You don't think anything through very well. Just sent anything that contradicts your very narrow views. I also don't have to hunt for food, with one arm in some of the most hostile conditions to ever exist. In the Pleistocene? Yeah any of us would die without medical help. But in your mind, 80 Ka, a Neanderthal somehow amputated his own arm, stopped the bleeding, fought off infection, kept the wound clean despite being weak from blood loss and then went out and hunted for his own food one handed? And then buried himself with grace goods when he died! What an amazing world you live in where reality doesn't figure into your thoughts, ever. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

You do realize that evolution was imagined or conjured up by an angry old man in hopes to deceive his wife and children who believed in God right?
You do realize that all the crap he spewed has been proven false right?
The really retarded thing is evolution will never predate creation and any form of evolution is only possible because of creation...
Creation and evolution are obvious 2 different things yet creation will always supersede evolution and or evolution would need creation to ever be possible...

What movie or TV program did you get this information from? Comedy Central?

You make statements with no references. So I assume this is your own take on a topic that you know absolutely nothing about.

I hope you're picking up after your dinosaur.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Coop, I don't know where you get this "meaningless ancestors of mutant apes" stuff. We have a common ancestor - GENETICALLY.

Please consider this question and I really would appreciate an answer since you do know something about science:

You are a scientist on a mission to a new planet. Your job is to research any life on the planet and outline your initial observations for further research.

You land on the planet. It's teaming with life, not necessarily like life on Earth.

You begin to take your samples.

You go back to the lab and start your analysis. You isolate the DNA, run it up on gels, make a chromatogram etc. Then you select 100 samples which you collected on the planet and compared their genetic profile. You find that approximately 85-90% of the profiles match.

Question:

What is your first observation? Note I did not say "conclusion" because more work has to be done. But your first observation is how you will design further experiments.

So what is it? What is the first thing you would say about the samples taken from Planet Nibiru?

Please answer the question honestly.

Considering the variation of genetic makeup of contemporary humans can vary as much as 10%, I would be hesitant to jump to any conclusions, as you said. Our genetic makeup is purposefully malleable so we can adapt to essentially any climate on earth - Inuit in extreme northern lattitudes, Nepalese in extreme altitude, etc. It would be easy to let my imagination run wild if i was a firm believer in evolution, I could instead say "viola! Look at their genetic similarity, surely they evolved from one to another"

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Coop, I don't know where you get this "meaningless ancestors of mutant apes" stuff. We have a common ancestor - GENETICALLY.

Please consider this question and I really would appreciate an answer since you do know something about science:

You are a scientist on a mission to a new planet. Your job is to research any life on the planet and outline your initial observations for further research.

You land on the planet. It's teaming with life, not necessarily like life on Earth.

You begin to take your samples.

You go back to the lab and start your analysis. You isolate the DNA, run it up on gels, make a chromatogram etc. Then you select 100 samples which you collected on the planet and compared their genetic profile. You find that approximately 85-90% of the profiles match.

Question:

What is your first observation? Note I did not say "conclusion" because more work has to be done. But your first observation is how you will design further experiments.

So what is it? What is the first thing you would say about the samples taken from Planet Nibiru?

Please answer the question honestly.

Considering the variation of genetic makeup of contemporary humans can vary as much as 10%, I would be hesitant to jump to any conclusions, as you said. Our genetic makeup is purposefully malleable so we can adapt to essentially any climate on earth - Inuit in extreme northern lattitudes, Nepalese in extreme altitude, etc. It would be easy to let my imagination run wild if i was a firm believer in evolution, I could instead say "viola! Look at their genetic similarity, surely they evolved from one to another"

Bad answer. The answer is there is a commonality among the samples. That's all you can say. You have no other information. You don't know if they evolved, designed as artificial intelligence, or perhaps came from some other planet.
Your answer wasn't objective. The first thing you did was compare the samples to humans and your personal opinion as to why there is genetic variety. You are letting your bias and imagination construct an answer which has absolutely nothing to do with the samples.
The take home message here is you make an observation on the information you have in front of you. Questions come later.

a reply to: cooperton

The whole argument you present about genetic variation is a bit of a misnomer though. Even monozygotic twins have genetic variation due to replication errors and SNP's that occur during gestational development.

It also ignores facts such as mutation rates established through molecular clocks that line up with things we see in the fossil record. It's a bit of a stretch to say that there's nothing to see here when multiple lines of evidence lead to the same conclusion. And no, the conclusion isn't established first and the evidence fitted to the desired outcome. That's how AIG and ICR do their version of science, not how Evolutionary Biology, Genetics and Anthropology operate though.

I see repeated claims in this thread about some overreaching hierarchy of scientific establishment forcing us to work with a narrow framework and anyone who dissents from it gets the axe and is kicked out of the band when the exact opposite is true.

Anyone who has ever been to a conference or a lecture with a Q&A knows how this actually goes because these fields are so competitive, you've always, literally... Always, have someone attempting to dispute and falsify your work because they want you to be wrong so that they can be correct. The whole premise of a unified gang of thieves in the night is such a crazy falsehood. And that doesn't even touch on what happens when you have to defend a thesis, dissertation or paper presented for peer review. That's when things get really ugly!

a reply to: cooperton

Are you sure you've had scientific training?

Humans are (on average) 0.1% diverse. Not 10%. SO please cite your source thanks. As someone trained in Bioinformatics, who has crunched quite a lot of Genomic data, that seems an odd number to not be well known. Are you sure you are not quoting 10% of that 0.1% diversity?

a reply to: cooperton

Ok your wrong very wrong All humans are 99.9 per cent identical and, of that tiny 0.1 percent difference. Not 10 percent as you claim. Chimpanzees share 95 percent so imagine a life form only sharing 90 percent wouldnt even be human. With genetic disorders possible the maximum variance possible is 98.4 percent assuming you found someone with every genetic disease possible.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok your wrong very wrong All humans are 99.9 per cent identical and, of that tiny 0.1 percent difference. Not 10 percent as you claim. Chimpanzees share 95 percent so imagine a life form only sharing 90 percent wouldnt even be human. With genetic disorders possible the maximum variance possible is 98.4 percent assuming you found someone with every genetic disease possible.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Are you sure you've had scientific training?

Humans are (on average) 0.1% diverse. Not 10%. SO please cite your source thanks. As someone trained in Bioinformatics, who has crunched quite a lot of Genomic data, that seems an odd number to not be well known. Are you sure you are not quoting 10% of that 0.1% diversity?

Just for fun, let me add another paper detailing the decoding of diploid genomics. It's an interesting look at sifting through both sets of inherited DNA that most people probably aren't aware of. Linky

a reply to: dragonridr

I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the genetic similarities between Chimpanzee and Humans is actually 98.8%

a reply to: dragonridr

I have a feeling the 10% is from an analysis of so called races. There is more variation WITHIN the groups wee think of as races, than between.

See this is why I do not thin Coop is trained in Chemistry, or Neuroscience, he makes these sort of mistakes. Perhaps he took some undergrad papers, and has a degree or degrees in non biological sciences

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Are you sure you've had scientific training?

Humans are (on average) 0.1% diverse. Not 10%. SO please cite your source thanks. As someone trained in Bioinformatics, who has crunched quite a lot of Genomic data, that seems an odd number to not be well known. Are you sure you are not quoting 10% of that 0.1% diversity?

Yeah I goofed. Memory is not perfect and I didn't double check with dr google. This is what happens when you rush a post.

See this is why I do not thin Coop is trained in Chemistry, or Neuroscience, he makes these sort of mistakes.

Just because you never admit when you are wrong does not mean you are never wrong.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

Ok your wrong

You're* wrong

a reply to: cooperton

I've admitted I am wrong plenty here. However you have repeatedly shown that you are not o fey with the biological sciences, and Chemistry. Perchance you are trained in another discipline?