Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

So, 2000 years ago when American Indians and black Africans were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce ......................

.............were these two groups of humans 'separate species'?

We don't know that these two groups were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce.

The Solutrean hypothesis holds that ancient Europeans came to North America more than 10,000 yeas ago (oh, yeah, right . . . as far as you're concerned, none of this existed then)--and in fact, since Solutrean tool-making technology disappeared from Europe 15,000 years ago, the hypothesis holds that European tribesmen may well have arrived in "the new world" before the tribes who became the Amerindians.

Now, without saying that the Solutrean hypothesis is correct, it is worth pointing out that mitochondrial DNA analysis does lend credence to the hypothesis. Ancient MDNA haplogroup X is present in some Amerindians. MDNA haplogroup X is an ancient European genetic marker. It could have come to North America across Asia and via Siberia and the hypothesized land bridge at the end of the last ice age, but MDNA haplogroup X does not appear in the tribes of Siberia, although all other MDNA haplogroups common to Amerindians do. This hapologroup is present, on average, in 3% of all Amerindians (the significance is that a shared MDNA haplogroup is evidence of an ancient, common maternal ancestor); but more significantly, the incidence of the appearance of MDNA haplogroup X rises to 25% among members of Amerindian tribes in Eastern Canada, the region in which Solutreans likely would have settled if they did come from Europe.

In South Africa, there is a group of more than 50,000 tribesmen calling themselves the Lemba, who claim to be descended from the ancient Jews. Genetic testing shows that that a substantial number of the men of the Lemba tribes carry a genetic marker on the "Y" chromosome which is known as the Y-DNA haplogroup J, and which is only present elsewhere in the world amongs Jews and the people and descendants of Semitic peoples of the middle east. More signficantly, there is sept or clan of the Lemba known as the Buba who provide the priests of the Lemba people, and among the members of a small sample of the Buba clan, 52% carry the "Cohan modal haplotype." This is a genetic marker which is only known elsewhere among the Kohanim, the priestly class of the Jews. Additionally, all of the Lemba possess a large number of genetic markers of non-Semitic people of the middle east.

So, to assume that any two human populations on this planet ever were geographically isolated from a naturally occurring reproductive opportunity would be a dicey proposition at best.

The Wikipedia article on the Solutrean hypothesis

The Wikipedia article on the Lemba

0 Replies

Once again, these exchanges constitute yet another attempt on your part to avoid the burden of this thread.

What proof do you offer for creationism?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
So, 2000 years ago when American Indians and black Africans were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce ......................

.............were these two groups of humans 'separate species'?

We don't know that these two groups were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce.

oh so they have to be separated for how long[/i][/u] before you can consider them 'separate species'?

a day?

a month?

a year?

100 years?

1000 years?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Creation addresses the origin of all things:

the cosmos
first life
man

etc

No one has said the Flood was the cause of the origin of anything.

So prove that it happened. That's the purpose of this thread you hypocrite.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Don't post a laundry list. Give one example at a time in order to foster discussion.

What do you consider THE strongest piece of evidence that indicates the universe is 'old' ?

This is just so sad. Read the topic, 'real life'. Believe it or not it's related to evidence for creationism, no your apparent ignorant opposition to modern science. Of course I'm sure they're related, but you know that an argument from ignorance is a fallacy, right?

So, what happened to that almost-substance we had going on when I explained a small bit of how science works? Do you implicitly admit fault concerning the cosmological argument?

And what happened to evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Specify what evidence you are referring to , rosborne.

Are you drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence to support your view that the Universe is 'old' as you say it is?

Of course. That's what science does. Why, does that bother you? Do you have a better suggestion for how we should develop scientific theories?

As long as you clearly state that your conclusions are actually only inferences based on circumstantial evidence, it doesn't bother me at all.

I use the standard scientific method, as I always have. We don't need to restate it or paraphrase it.

real life wrote:

So, specifically what circumstantial evidence have you interpreted to support the idea of an 'old' universe?

Ok, how about the age of the oldest white dwarf stars.

real life wrote:

Don't post a laundry list. Give one example at a time in order to foster discussion.

What do you consider THE strongest piece of evidence that indicates the universe is 'old' ?

Well, as you implied, there is quite a long list of convergent evidence. And they are all extremely strong, so it's very hard to pick THE strongest one.

Are you going to have me validate every bit of human knowledge to a particular probability and then add them all together to account for convergence. Should I quit my day job and plan on educating you from a kindergarten level?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
So, 2000 years ago when American Indians and black Africans were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce ......................

.............were these two groups of humans 'separate species'?

We don't know that these two groups were geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce.

oh so they have to be separated for how long[/i][/u] before you can consider them 'separate species'?

a day?

a month?

a year?

100 years?

1000 years?

As has already been pointed out to you, species is not a very specific term, in fact, and since Darwin's time, has been recognized as an arbitrary descriptor, the only purpose of which is to facilitate discussion. For whatever your intent in this particular matter, the implication of your question has strong racist overtones. I'm not surprised, though, since racism seems rife among fundamentalist christians in the United States.

Africa and South America are separated by the narrowest portion of the Atlantic ocean. Historical and archaeological evidence is abundant that human beings have had the ability to cross large bodies of water for thousands and thousands of years. Your question assumed that Amerindians and Africans were at some time "geographically separated from any naturally occurring attempt to reproduce." I have no good reason to join you in that assumption.

***************************************

Once again, none of that is germane to the subject of the thread. What proof do you offer for creationism?

0 Replies

Just as a polar bear has interbred with a brown bear (but most offspring are non viable), so could human sub species like H sapiens sapiens, and H sapiens idaltu interbreed (but perhaps successfully at least from fossil evidence). Its been thought that H neanderthalensis and H sapiens idaltu had interbred but H sapiens sapiens and H neanderthalensis did not.
Evidence of neanderthal genomes are only partially known from Paabo's work. Specimens with good DNA or first order osteo calcin , are rare and only about 1/25 of the neander genome has been sequenced .

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
So, specifically what circumstantial evidence have you interpreted to support the idea of an 'old' universe?

Ok, how about the age of the oldest white dwarf stars.

Now, actually ros, you didn't really give any evidence for your view that white dwarf stars are 'old', you simply asserted it.

But here are a few thoughts regarding it.

The great majority of the stars are thought to go thru roughly the same life cycle, with some exceptions. (At present we'll assume it true for the sake of argument.)

Standard phase-red giant- white dwarf is thought to be the routine life cycle for most stars.

The number of white dwarf stars is relatively small, i.e. they make up only a small percentage of all stars. (Most stars are still said to be in the 'early' or 'standard phase', including our Sun.)

If only a small percentage of stars are 'at the end' of their life cycle, that means that relatively few stars formed 'near the beginning' or soon after the presumed BB.

That means that some other event(s) or conditions must cause the genesis of the overwhelming majority of stars MUCH later.

Therefore, IMHO one of the problems with the stellar evolution hypothesis is explaining how only just a very few stars could be formed early on, and why the great majority didn't show up til much, much later.

0 Replies

Quote:

Therefore, IMHO one of the problems with the stellar evolution hypothesis is explaining how only just a very few stars could be formed early on, and why the great majority didn't show up til much, much later

Very Few? howmany is that?
Stellar formation can be observed NOW thanks to Hubble.

0 Replies

Yeah, what happened to the material ejected out of the Red Giant when it becomes a White Dwarf? Its outer layers get puffed out into space. What happened to those, RL?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
the post is poorly written, no fault of yours for misreading it

Yes, it was poorly written . . . but i did not "misread" it, you "miswrote" it......Your "apology" here is "left-handed," it attempts to slyly suggest.....

Now you are misreading.

If I had thought you misread the earlier post, I would have said, 'it IS your fault for misreading it'. Instead I said it is NOT.

0 Replies

Whether you said it is or it isn't my fault, you are saying that i misread it. I did not misread it. Your post only mentioned Ros, and therefore it is completely reasonable to consider all remarks in the post to be addressed to Ros. I certainly am not going to assume that you have not imputed to someone else things which that person did not say or imply, because you do that so frequently. You've done it often enough in the past and likely will continue to do so in the future, so you can expect that if you are not more specific that people will come to the conclusion that you are doing so again.

0 Replies

The ambiguities of your epistolary style, the age of stars and the ambiguities of a definition of species are all, however, irrelevant to the burden of the thread.

What proof do you offer for creationism?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
So, specifically what circumstantial evidence have you interpreted to support the idea of an 'old' universe?

Ok, how about the age of the oldest white dwarf stars.

Now, actually ros, you didn't really give any evidence for your view that white dwarf stars are 'old', you simply asserted it.

Actually RL I didn't assert it, science asserted it. It's a scientific fact, based on a series of correlated scientific facts.

But that's ok, you obviously disagree with that scientific fact just like you you disagree with the scientific fact of evolution.

So let's pick another piece of circumstantial evidence which supports the idea of an old universe. How about the age of the chemical elements? They also conform to the idea of an old universe.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What proof do you offer for creationism?

Stop asking that question, it hurts his sense of righteousness. Oh, and don't bring up the cosmological argument either, the topic is his incredulous skepticism of how old the earth is because is conflicts with his silly beliefs.

Next he'll be demanding explanations of plate tectonics. Anything to avoid simple, direct answers, eh?

Hi 'real life', whose name is getting more and more ironic: where is your evidence for creationism? Why can you only handle discussions where you set yourself up to be the doubter? You know that arguments from ignorance are fallacious, right?

0 Replies

But but but but, see?, in RL's world there are only two answers, His and what he believes to be everyone elses. In his world, therefore, if he can cast doubt on the "other answer" then, in his mind, that strengthens the one remaining answer. Duh, duh, duh, dualism.

He has no idea of how many answers there are.

Joe(billions. And more than a couple of billion of them are on the right track)Nation

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
So, specifically what circumstantial evidence have you interpreted to support the idea of an 'old' universe?

Ok, how about the age of the oldest white dwarf stars.

Now, actually ros, you didn't really give any evidence for your view that white dwarf stars are 'old', you simply asserted it.

But here are a few thoughts regarding it.

The great majority of the stars are thought to go thru roughly the same life cycle, with some exceptions. (At present we'll assume it true for the sake of argument.)

Standard phase-red giant- white dwarf is thought to be the routine life cycle for most stars.

The number of white dwarf stars is relatively small, i.e. they make up only a small percentage of all stars. (Most stars are still said to be in the 'early' or 'standard phase', including our Sun.)

If only a small percentage of stars are 'at the end' of their life cycle, that means that relatively few stars formed 'near the beginning' or soon after the presumed BB.

That means that some other event(s) or conditions must cause the genesis of the overwhelming majority of stars MUCH later.

Therefore, IMHO one of the problems with the stellar evolution hypothesis is explaining how only just a very few stars could be formed early on, and why the great majority didn't show up til much, much later.

Actually RL I didn't assert it, science asserted it. It's a scientific fact, based on a series of correlated scientific facts.

But that's ok, you obviously disagree with that scientific fact just like you you disagree with the scientific fact of evolution.

So let's pick another piece of circumstantial evidence which supports the idea of an old universe. How about the age of the chemical elements? They also conform to the idea of an old universe.

Actually, I'm quite comfortable discussing white dwarf stars.

Why aren't you all of a sudden?

Instead of just asserting 'white dwarf stars are old, this I know, for science tells me so' (and then changing the subject when someone disagrees), what specific evidence have you interpreted to lead you to that conclusion?

Remember you're supposed to be the guy with the evidence, not me, right?

Why are the overwhelming majority of stars MUCH younger (even in your view) than the relatively few white dwarf stars that exist?

0 Replies

Gonna jump in here and note that buzzwords are annoying as crap Very Happy

.

Using the word "scientific fact" plays off the same ignorance of the distinction between facts and theories, as if evolution's status as a theory (or gravity, or PE, or much of Quantum Mechanics) makes it unsubstantiated.

Now, I know what you intend by the word "scientific fact" - you mean something scientists consider to be extremely well-supported. I think that's essentially how creationists would interpret it as well, however it doesn't play up the most important distinction: creationists compare apples and oranges when they distinguish between a 'fact' and a 'theory' as if a 'theory' is a guess or a hunch. I don't think the level of discourse will be raised nor do I think people will be convinced, personally.

And calling it a 'scientific fact' confuses matters even more, as in the strict terminology of science, the theory isn't a fact, even though it's extremely well-supported by reality in general.

0 Replies

'real life', what is an argument from ignorance? Are you aware of this fallacy?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know