Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

No, I'm looking at the complete human genome, not just the proteome. Previously you said there was evidence for alien DNA. Why can't you now tell me where it's exactly?

edit on 30-8-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

My only argument would be to consider where your data is coming from... although that is a weak one. If I had an answer that would be like finding the Holy Grail.

reply to post by intrepid


Depends. The Hebrews were under the covenant. Lot was not.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Yes, I've seen a whale and they are REALLY big, I reckon they could gobble-up a
man who was accidently washed overboard or something... I don't think the whale
would 'eat' him though...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Hey all creationists (christian, ancient astronaut, etc.).



How do you explain the alignment?

It's precursor insulin polypeptide. At the top: human & chimp, the lowest is zebrafish, and the one above that is chicken. The others are wolf, cow, rat and mouse (if you care about the order check from genbank which is which).

edit on 30-8-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

While I'm neither, I'll address this.

Analogs.

The universe is full of analogs. The idea that life all over would the universe MUST be different from one another is a thought experiment. Other biospheres could very well develop under the same circumstances with similar results.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


For the last time it is not unreliable. Differences in isotope decay amount to a difference of 0.1%. Do I need to say that again? Differences in isotope decay amount to a difference of 0.1%. That means that the current estimated age of the Earth (4.54 billion years) could in fact be closer to 4 billion or 5 billion years. No more. No less. You keep claiming you have all of this scientific evidence to back up your claims, but I have yet to see you post one peer-reviewed article or even a link to a popular science magazine.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Couldn't God change them -as Mr. RevelationGeneration said?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


REVELATIONGENERATION

YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS NOW, TO EXPLAIN HOW ETHNICITY CAME ABOUT FROM ADAM AND EVE..

WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS? YOU SEEM TO HAVE PLENTY TO SAY.

Excuse caps everyone,
Thanks

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I'm not familiar with all the species, true.
However, staying alive in it's belly for 3 days? Not getting digested or anything?
How did he breathe? Sure a whale breathes, it's got a spout, too, but not connected to it's stomach...
You said earlier that the story is an analogy, and that i can beleive.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


By the way the Bartley tale is complete bunk. Here is an article written by a History professor that explores the validity of the tale.

A Whale of a Tale:
Fundamentalist Fish Stories

reply to post by A boy in a dress


Most of them can't.
Inside their mouth, they have a huge 'filter' of bone which only lets tiny animals through.
The 'eating' kind tend to tear stuff to shreds first

reply to post by Aeons


Well actually, it's more likely they would develop similar adaptations, but the planet would not be Earth, so they would not be experiences in the same sequence of events. As such, a fish might evolve eyes after getting on land, and as such have the genes in completely different locations. Of course, it could still evolve the same way and evolve them at different locations.

Point is, as I said a bit back, genes themselves are as unimaginably scrambled as something splattered on a wall. But the adaptations they make usually follow some pattern. This prevents hybridization, but allows similar species.

Of course, personally, I doubt the existence of humanoid aliens.

Originally posted by Ozvaldo
REVELATIONGENERATION

YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS NOW, TO EXPLAIN HOW ETHNICITY CAME ABOUT FROM ADAM AND EVE..

Mass migration out of Eden [The Fertile Crescent where Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals interbred] Then later they became genetically isolated and developed individual physical traits better suited for their local environments.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

Way to plagiarize someone else's writing for your entire post and not cite your source. Your hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yea Slayer I recall that thought. Though that forces me to view Neanderthals as more likely something more ape-like than human-like in appearance, simply because we do not see any real racial differentiation until India. Hence the term Caucasian, as the Caucus is right around there. This is also suggested by the fact Asians have Nanderthal DNA too, because the groups would keep moving east, and they also had denosov-whatever you call it dna too.

I rather like Danny Vendramini's portrayal, and even some of the theories, which could explain the lack of real evidence for Neanderthal-Human cooperation to any significant degree.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by intrepid

 

Depends. The Hebrews were under the covenant. Lot was not.

So he he has rules for some and other rules for others? Spurious thinking imo. Btw, wasn't Lot related to Abraham?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


On the matter of isotope dating, you have a valid point
I'm no expert, but the hypothesis must include all factors, carbon in particular is unreliable after 4000 years or so.
I still agree to disagree on the matter of the age of the earth

reply to post by Vitchilo


Im so glad you are open minded enough to lable those who believe in creation as "loonies" lol

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


So, you're going to go ahead an use Humphrey's work as your basis for a young Earth? Are you really sure you want to do that? I mean he even has numerous young Earth Creationists criticizing his work. If you want to read an essay that draws together all of the criticisms of Humphrey's work here's one for you.

Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates": Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data

reply to post by intrepid


I forget if Lot was related or not, but the covenant was for Abraham's descendants.

Personally I've never seen a problem with having different "rules of engagement" for different groups/ individuals. I certainly wouldn't have sent Christ to the world of Greece or the world of Minoa.

The Bible does have a pretty consistent story as to how to deal with different groups, though always makes it personal and individualistic. Furthermore it doesn't group people of any area together, it creates categories that people fall into though, sometimes. Those whom are hard of heart and locked in their evil ways get a warning, then get blasted. Those that are open to change get more mercy and God works with them longer, among other things.

God doesn't deal with groups. He deals with individuals. Even in groups he chooses for something better, he still treats them as individuals. Those whom ask for more authority are treated so, and their mistakes greater in punishment for it. Those whom ask for less are treated to less trials and scale of events, and in turn are dealt with so. God is for the individual.