Renowned genetics expert claims to have found proof on Adam and Eve existence

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

a reply to: Annee

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with being spiritual, or believing in some form of a God.

The problems start when people take things like the Bible seriously.

a reply to: grey580

If we share 99% of the DNA then why can't we mate with them? We should be able to at least produce one after all this time don't you think?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

Actually, there are evidences for evolution, such as:

Ancient Organism Remains

Fossil Layers

Similarities Among Living Organisms

Similarities of Embryos


I can't really say for the bible since and creationism since i don't really look into that.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him like the building blocks of life. Darwin thought that the building blocks of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him. Darwin thought that the building block of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

And what are the building blocks of DNA?

Atoms Protons & Electrons?

Or...

APEs?


lulz.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: grey580

If we share 99% of the DNA then why can't we mate with them? We should be able to at least produce one after all this time don't you think?

If i'm not mistaken it's possible for humans and chimps to mate and have a hybrid just like a donkey with a horse can give rise to a mule. But no one ever tried that out and probably never will.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him. Darwin thought that the building block of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

And what are the building blocks of DNA?

Atoms Protons & Electrons?

Or...

APEs?


lulz.

What are you talking about?

a reply to: Frocharocha

Unfortunately none of those prove that we came from apes. Hell our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: grey580

If we share 99% of the DNA then why can't we mate with them? We should be able to at least produce one after all this time don't you think?

If i'm not mistaken it's possible for humans and chimps to mate and have a hybrid just like a donkey with a horse can give rise to a mule. But no one ever tried that out and probably never will.

I'm willing to bet they tried but failed, if they had succeeded it would have been the biggest discovery of all time.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Frocharocha

Unfortunately none of those prove that we came from apes. Hell our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

It's not that we find "our own" DNA in trees, rice, etc. It's that we share DNA because we had a common ancestor. An example I could give is that you share more DNA with your parents than with your cousins and even less with me and less with trees.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him. Darwin thought that the building block of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

And what are the building blocks of DNA?

Atoms Protons & Electrons?

Or...

APEs?


lulz.

What are you talking about?

Don't worry about it.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: grey580

If we share 99% of the DNA then why can't we mate with them? We should be able to at least produce one after all this time don't you think?

If i'm not mistaken it's possible for humans and chimps to mate and have a hybrid just like a donkey with a horse can give rise to a mule. But no one ever tried that out and probably never will.

I'm willing to bet they tried but failed, if they had succeeded it would have been the biggest discovery of all time.

Yeah they could have tried it out. But i can't imagine how bizarre it was.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him like the building blocks of life. Darwin thought that the building blocks of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

Ok, fair enough on Darwin. But since we know or at least think we know it's DNA why is it that our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

a reply to: Frocharocha
So this "renowned genetics expert" isn't publishing her world-shattering research in a journal, or a monograph, or presenting it at a biology conference. She's selling a DVD. Figures.

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: grey580

If we share 99% of the DNA then why can't we mate with them? We should be able to at least produce one after all this time don't you think?

If i'm not mistaken it's possible for humans and chimps to mate and have a hybrid just like a donkey with a horse can give rise to a mule. But no one ever tried that out and probably never will.

I'm willing to bet they tried but failed, if they had succeeded it would have been the biggest discovery of all time.

Yeah they could have tried it out. But i can't imagine how bizarre it was.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing the results myself. Of course I might not ever sleep again.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him like the building blocks of life. Darwin thought that the building blocks of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

Ok, fair enough on Darwin. But since know or at least think we know it's DNA why is it that our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

That's why I tend to believe in limitations to Earthly DNA & genetic coding rather than direct or distant relationships.

Makes much more sense than speciation, in my opinion.

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Frocharocha

Unfortunately none of those prove that we came from apes. Hell our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

It's not that we find "our own" DNA in trees, rice, etc. It's that we share DNA because we had a common ancestor. An example I could give is that you share more DNA with your parents than with your cousins and even less with me and less with trees.

But there is human DNA in trees right? Where did that come from?

This documentary has the same name as many papers with different opinions. I'm not so willing to say this is by mistake.

I apologise for my part in derailing the topic...


I don't believe this woman has found proof of Adam & Eve...
& I think it's telling that she works for Answers In Genesis, that alone smells of confirmation bias.