Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Kurokage

Things like hair, skin colour and some soft tissue I would have to agree with, but you only have to look at pictures drawn of people from partial skeletal remains found to know that they can get pretty damn close.

Have you ever seen those memes where they guess how aliens would reconstruct a skull?

www.boredpanda.com...

a reply to: cooperton

No I'm pretty sure our job is not only to keep the world save but to improve it.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

No I'm pretty sure our job is not only to keep the world save but to improve it.

I agree

a reply to: cooperton

Have you ever seen those memes where they guess how aliens would reconstruct a skull?

www.boredpanda.com...

Thats actually quite funny!!
A new theory of Neaderthal being a hunter and predator of humans is interesting even though it's totallly unproven, they given it a much more monsterous apperance. we do have a tendancy to over humanize our ancestors I think.
Predatory Neaderthals.

a reply to: cooperton

How can you agree? It's the opposite of what you said 1 post before

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

lol that's a pretty poetic description of a #show like the mess we are in.

It's not our duty to save the world, we just gotta play the cards we were dealt. In that sense its actually pretty fun

originally posted by: Kurokage


Thats actually quite funny!!
A new theory of Neaderthal being a hunter and predator of humans is interesting even though it's totallly unproven, they given it a much more monsterous apperance. we do have a tendancy to over humanize our ancestors I think.
Predatory Neaderthals.

Yeah neanderthal skulls have larger cranial capacities on average so who knows what they were. Maybe a different race? Just looking at their skull makes me think they were violently antagonistic to something.

originally posted by: Peeple

How can you agree? It's the opposite of what you said 1 post before:

"It's not our duty to save the world, we just gotta play the cards we were dealt."

I said it's not our duty to save the world. By playing the cards we were dealt I meant doing the best we can with each given scenario. or like you said, to improve the world (even with the simplest of actions).

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: bastion

It makes far more sense than thinking some creator designed life on Earth given the massive scale of the Universe or believing The Bible is 'absolute correct truth' when it written by Man.

No it really really doesn't at all. Stop dreaming. Fjrst the abiogenesis only happened for dinosaurs. Then the hostile environment wipes them all out and it has happen a second time GTFOH that's insane.

I don't think you quite grasp the theory of evolution or the history of Earth despite your attempts tp ridicule it.

The Bible is all about how man is inherently flawed but can find salvation through Christ, he had to die for our sins after all. Believing the word of Man in the gospels to be 'absolte correct truth' makes no sense as they're not verbatim coppies and contradict each other in a few key areas - perfectly understandable when interpretation of Man is considered but completely illogical to consider it absolute truth.

Isn't it a bit offensive to a Creator, or against Pride to believe we as humans could ever truly understand or be capable of understanding, let alone defining what such a creator meant and/or claim it to be 'absolute correct truth'? I have my personal beliefs but I'm not part of any organised religion and, to me, it's incredibly offensive to the biblical God and against the Bible to assume you personaly have authority to speak on God's behalf.

There's plenty of room for a Creator to have caused the Big Bang/Origin of the Universe or set/designed the laws of our current Universe; plenty of room for the Genesis account of Creation is an accurate precis of big bang theory and more than enough evidence Jesus was an awesome guy we owe most of our morals, values and ethics to but nothing to suggest God/various authors meant the Bible as absolute truth and plenty of parables to take the accoun of man with a grain of salt.

So who is winning?

Has anyone changed anyones mind yet?

Does everyone still believe the same things before going into the thread?

Yeah.

originally posted by: Lysergic
So who is winning?

Has anyone changed anyones mind yet?

Does everyone still believe the same things before going into the thread?

Yeah.

Yeah, but its interesting to talk about and even sometimes try and see it from a genuine persons perspective if it doesn't get heated.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Yeah, but its interesting to talk about and even sometimes try and see it from a genuine persons perspective if it doesn't get heated.

Yeah at the end of the day respect is more important than origin beliefs. If respect and dignity are part of people's beliefs, then we shouldn't lose that when expressing our beliefs.

originally posted by: Lysergic
So who is winning?

Has anyone changed anyones mind yet?

Does everyone still believe the same things before going into the thread?

Yeah.

I would bet there are people reading and learning about both sides of the debate.

For me to reconsider evolution I would need to see populations of organisms being artificially selected into a new kind of organism. Otherwise it seems apparent that organisms maintain their essential identity and cannot forego macroevolution

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

You're 40% Banana.

... About 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome! "Of those 60 percent, the proteins encoded by them are roughly 40 percent identical when we compare the amino acid sequence of the human protein to its equivalent in the banana," Brody adds.

...

link

Let's do a bit of math: How much % is 40% out of 60%? (0.4 * 0.6 = 0.24, i.e. 24%)

How much % similarity of the entire genome (including non-coding regions, often used for regulatory functionality and things like alternate gene splicing) is left if you factor in that protein-coding genes only make up less than 3% of the genome in the human genome (which may be different for bananas but let's ignore that for a moment and let's go with 3% for convenience sake). 0.03 * 0.4 * 0.6 = 0.0072, i.e. 0.72%. Not much (full) genome similarity left then with the numbers given by your source* is there (if you don't ignore what % of the genome is being focused on by your source, a percentage number not mentioned by your source, the 3%, as if the rest of the genome isn't important when comparing DNA similarity between different kinds of organisms; even though, that part of the genome has been discovered to be a major cause for the differences in endresult, what kind of organism you end up with^)?

*: FYI, I don't consider next generation sequencing methods to be very reliable or produce very accurate results (accurate genomes) compared to the old Sanger sequencing method, making comparisons between genomes or even individual genes of different organisms assembled and sequenced with next generation sequencing methods a bit dubious. But it's a long story involving the topic of read lengths and assembly issues. The accuracy is also affected by the length of the gene being sequenced when we're talking about the rather short read lengths and heavy use of extrapolation of next generation sequencing methods.

^: just like a programmer using one programming language with the same set (class or library) of functions used in different ways in different programs, but they're still calling up the same set of functions that individually (out of their larger context) look the same (are called up with the same letters and words).

...
FACTS AND QUESTIONS

Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas​—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—​are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.

Question: Given the controversy over these pillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version of evolution honestly be referred to as scientific fact?

Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.

Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?

Source: QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

I would recommend you answering or considering that last question seriously for yourself in all honesty, if I hadn't gotten the impression that for the time being, you have little interest in doing so (or admitting the obvious, reasonable and logical answer to that question, unaffected by any strongly preferred views/beliefs about the matter).

a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.
But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

For me to reconsider evolution I would need to see populations of organisms being artificially selected into a new kind of organism. Otherwise it seems apparent that organisms maintain their essential identity and cannot forego macroevolution

Isn't that a chimera?

For decades, biologists have also been creating chimeras that are a mix of cells from different species. For instance, mice with human immune systems have long been used for medical research.

Several groups around the world are now trying to grow specific organs in another species, such as a human heart in a pig. The aim of this work is to provide organs for transplantation, but the creation of animal-human chimeras is controversial.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.

Huh? the MacBook and MacBook Air have a lot of similar coding and they came from the same creator. Why would we not share coding with other biological organisms?

But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

Whereislogic was right on his math... they were saying that 40% of the 60% of protein coding sequences that are alignable with humans are matching. But protein coding sequences only account for 1% of the genome. so 40% of 60% of 1% = 0.24% match between humans and bananas. You have to watch out for the sci-fi articles, they give misleading titles to try to lure in readers

a reply to: cooperton

So you admit, you're a MacBook and the Banana is the Air version of you?
That's progress, good for you.

a reply to: cooperton

Because we diverged early, that's what I keep saying. But from the 'functions' we do share, you know aka: the right sample, 40% are identical.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

"For me to reconsider evolution I would need to see populations of organisms being artificially selected into a new kind of organism. Otherwise it seems apparent that organisms maintain their essential identity and cannot forego macroevolution"

Isn't that a chimera?

such a mechanism wouldn't be able to account for the diversity of species. You would need some proof that conventional macroevolution would be possible to accompany chimeras in the theory. You couldn't originate all the organisms on earth simply through hybridization. Most hybrids are sterile anyway.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

So you admit, you're a MacBook and the Banana is the Air version of you?
That's progress, good for you.

No I was saying that similar code, in this case 0.24%, does not disprove a Creator. Similar codes could be used among various organisms. There are a lot of proteins that are used in most organisms on the planet such as ATP synthase. These things are like hydrogen fuel cell generators combined with an electrochemical motor... It is designed.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.
But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

Or it could be good enough to prove a Common Designer.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: whereislogic

If we plopped out of the flask of some creator we wouldn't share anything at all.
But while what you say is true we have to consider hundreds of millions of years seperating us. So from the parts we share, 40 % are identical.
That is good enough to prove evolution.

Or it could be good enough to prove a Common Designer.

With a "Universe Z" patent.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Because we diverged early, that's what I keep saying. But from the 'functions' we do share, you know aka: the right sample, 40% are identical.

Or God used the same perfect little energy-generating motor (ATP synthase) in all independent lifeforms. There are many other proteins that are essential for all life. These things coming to be by random chance is about as likely as a microscopic ford motor linked to a hydrogen fuel cell coming to be by random chance... No way... It required design.