132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 03:52 pm
@GorDie,
So you have simply defined multi cell organism to create your conclusion. Just like I said.
GorDie
 
  -2  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:16 pm
@parados,
No. What I am saying is no organism exists as a mature entity with 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,14 or a similar cell count.

The example provided by the other poster was a colony of cells, which are 100% self dependant, and are not ONE organism as a group.

So again, YOU came to a stupid conclusion; and you did not ask, you stated, indicating you're just Stupid. And that was Not what you said (as you conclude by saying, "Just like I said.")... again, proving you're stupid.

I didn't define a multi cell organism - Never tried or came close to something comparable of the act. And you, being stupid, came about trolling like a turd, suggesting that is what I did.

Cause: you're stupid.
[So, there is a culture note for you; Some education : The way the phrase "Cause: You're stupid" is typed. {Cause: I still love you.} ]
GorDie
 
  -2  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:24 pm
@izzythepush,
which scientist have you ever met or spoken to who had hands on experience in the field? You seem the gullible type who would openly accept anything even ridiculous which supports your own ignorant ideology.

What do you think of the Theory of Gravity and how it doesn't apply to Mercury, Jupiter's moons, OR the Apha Century, Beta Century, Proxima star cluster.
Make you feel smart or stupid for believing in the Theory of Gravity?
FBM
 
  3  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 05:40 pm
*cough*

Alpha Centauri, Alpha Centauri B, Proxima Centauri.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 08:45 pm
@GorDie,
You're gloating well too soon, GorDie. They have in fact found a unified multi-cellular organism of four (that's 4) cells. Two years ago. In Tokyo. In alga lineages that apparently run the gamut from single cells to complex multi-cellular forms. Just four cells, count 'em, 1,2,3,4. Kinda blows you out of the water, doesn't it?

http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/utokyo-research/research-news/the-simplest-multicellular-organism-unveiled/

And why on earth (or Mercury) do you think gravity doesn't apply to Mercury? Kinda puts you at odds with three hundred years of astronomers. My money is on the astronomers.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 11:33 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
And why on earth (or Mercury) do you think gravity doesn't apply to Mercury? Kinda puts you at odds with three hundred years of astronomers. My money is on the astronomers.


lots of logical flaws......again.
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Tue 14 Jul, 2015 11:50 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
that's an absolutely vacuous response, quahog, like pretty much everything you do.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 02:18 am
@GorDie,
GorDie wrote:
You seem the gullible type who would openly accept anything even ridiculous which supports your own ignorant ideology.


I'm not the one with an ideology, and I'm not gullible enough to give a load of money to some snake oil salesman every Sunday.

You're just the latest in a long line of idiotic pseudoscientists who claim to know everything but can't back up any of their grandiose claims with anything other than links to creationist bullshit sites.

When a respected scientist, (you know a real scientist with real qualifications from a real university,) starts making such claims I might take notice, at the moment it's just religious idiots making unsubstantiated claims.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 02:20 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
that's an absolutely vacuous response, quahog, like pretty much everything you do.


Of course that is what you think! there is no other way. Wink
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  -2  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 07:23 am
@izzythepush,
Life and the universe is Gods cartoon. So the relative movement between objects is cartoon relativity.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 07:57 am
@martinies,
Yeah, whatever.
parados
 
  4  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 08:14 am
@GorDie,
No, you simply defined mature entity to require more cells than 1000 then claim that nothing smaller meets your definition. You have created a circular argument.


Quote:
I didn't define a multi cell organism -

Really? Then how do you declare that something isn't a multicell organism without a definition? Either you have a definition that excludes what you want it to or you have no definition and are declaring something without any evidence.
martinies
 
  -2  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 08:51 am
@izzythepush,
Evolution is just a way of constructing cartoon stuff .
izzythepush
 
  3  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 08:52 am
@martinies,
I'm not interested, prattle on to someone else, but leave me out of it.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 02:56 pm
@parados,
Quote:
and are declaring something without any evidence.


Is he cutting into your time?http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/hissyfit.gif
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:15 pm
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/c3/ef/25c3ef969fdf6a20846c1068ee9a04cf.jpg
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Wed 15 Jul, 2015 11:21 pm
@hingehead,
Now ok then. Why don't he show us the evidence? eh?



btw it looks like this psychopath , Dogma Dawkins, is getting desperate.

I like that!



btw isn't it a bit liek a circular reasoning? Does Dawkins want to prove to us he is sane? Because he certainly insn't sane at all!
He really believes stupid things.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Thu 16 Jul, 2015 03:59 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Interesting times we live in. It's not "news" news, but it's the first I've heard of it, so it's news to me: http://www.livescience.com/41679-oldest-human-dna-reveals-mysterious-homnid.html?cmpid=514627_20150701_48416776&adbid=10152845838306761&adbpl=fb&adbpr=30478646760

Quote:
Oldest Human DNA Reveals Mysterious Branch of Humanity
by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor | December 04, 2013
01:01pm ET
The oldest known human DNA found yet reveals human evolution was even more confusing than before thought, researchers say. The genetic material came from the bone of a hominin living in what is now the Sima de los Huesos in Northern Spain approximately 400,000 years ago during the Middle Pleistocene.

The oldest known human DNA found yet reveals human evolution was even more confusing than thought, researchers say.

The DNA, which dates back some 400,000 years, may belong to an unknown human ancestor, say scientists. These new findings could shed light on a mysterious extinct branch of humanity known as Denisovans, who were close relatives of Neanderthals, scientists added.

Although modern humans are the only surviving human lineage, others once strode the Earth. These included Neanderthals, the closest extinct relatives of modern humans, and the relatively newfound Denisovans, who are thought to have lived in a vast expanse from Siberia to Southeast Asia. Research shows that the Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals but were genetically distinct, with both apparently descending from a common ancestral group that had diverged earlier from the forerunners of modern humans. [See Images of Excavation & Mysterious 'New Hominid']

Genetic analysis suggests the ancestors of modern humans interbred with both these extinct lineages. Neanderthal DNA makes up 1 to 4 percent of modern Eurasian genomes, and Denisovan DNA makes up 4 to 6 percent of modern New Guinean and Bougainville Islander genomes in the Melanesian islands.

Pit of Bones

To discover more about human origins, researchers investigated a human thighbone unearthed in the Sima de los Huesos, or "Pit of Bones," an underground cave in the Atapuerca Mountains in northern Spain. The bone is apparently 400,000 years old.

The thighbone of the 400,000-year-old hominid from Sima de los Huesos, Spain.Pin It The thighbone of the 400,000-year-old hominid from Sima de los Huesos, Spain.

"This is the oldest human genetic material that has been sequenced so far," said study lead author Matthias Meyer, a molecular biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "This is really a breakthrough — we'd never have thought it possible two years ago that we could study the genetics of human fossils of this age." Until now, the previous oldest human DNA known came from a 100,000-year-old Neanderthal from a cave in Belgium.

The Sima de los Huesos is about 100 feet (30 meters) below the surface at the bottom of a 42-foot (13-meter) vertical shaft. Archaeologists suggest the bones may have been washed down it by rain or floods, or that the bones were even intentionally buried there.

This Pit of Bones has yielded fossils of at least 28 individuals, the world's largest collection of human fossils dating from the Middle Pleistocene, about 125,000 to 780,000 years ago.

"This is a very interesting time range," Meyer told LiveScience. "We think the ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals diverged maybe some 500,000 years ago." The oldest fossils of modern humans found yet date back to about 200,000 years ago.

Denisovan relative?

The researchers reconstructed a nearly complete genome of this fossil's mitochondria — the powerhouses of the cell, which possess their own DNA and get passed down from the mother. The fossils unearthed at the site resembled Neanderthals, so researchers expected this mitochondrial DNA to be Neanderthal.

Surprisingly, the mitochondrial DNA reveals this fossil shared a common ancestor not with Neanderthals, but with Denisovans, splitting from them about 700,000 years ago. This is odd, since research currently suggests the Denisovans lived in eastern Asia, not in western Europe, where this fossil was uncovered. The only known Denisovan fossils so far are a finger bone and a molar found in Siberia. [Denisovan Gallery: Tracing the Genetics of Human Ancestors]

"This opens up completely new possibilities in our understanding of the evolution of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans," Meyer said.

The researchers suggest a number of possible explanations for these findings. First, this specimen may have been closely related to the ancestors of Denisovans. However, this seems unlikely, since the presence of Denisovans in western Europe would suggest an extensive overlap of territory with Neanderthal ancestors, raising the question of how both groups could diverge genetically while overlapping in range. Moreover, the one known Denisovan tooth is significantly different from teeth seen at the Pit of Bones.

Second, the Sima de los Huesos humans may be related to the ancestors of both Neanderthals and Denisovans. The researchers consider this plausible given the fossil's age, but they would then have to explain how two very different mitochondrial DNA lineages stemmed from one group, one leading to Denisovans, the other to Neanderthals.

Third, the humans found at the Sima de los Huesos may be a lineage distinct from both Neanderthals and Denisovans that later perhaps contributed mitochondrial DNA to Denisovans. However, this suggests this group was somehow both distinct from Neanderthals but also independently evolved several Neanderthal-like skeletal features.

Fourth, the investigators suggest a currently unknown human lineage brought Denisovan-like mitochondrial DNA into the Pit of Bones region, and possibly also to the Denisovans in Asia.

"The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think," Meyer said. "This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before."

The scientists now hope to learn more about these fossils by retrieving DNA from their cell nuclei, not their mitochondria. However, this will be a huge challenge — the researchers needed almost 2 grams of bone to analyze mitochondrial DNA, which outnumbers nuclear DNA by several hundred times within the cell.

The scientists detailed their findings in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Nature.

I've been wondering if Denisovan DNA might actually be Homo erectus DNA. It would explain why we don't have any Denisovan skeletons.
FBM
 
  1  
Thu 16 Jul, 2015 06:05 am
@oralloy,
Well, the Denisovian samples that do exist are from individuals who lived only about 40k years ago. H. erectus was long gone by then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

And I'm pretty sure the geneticists would be able to make the distinction.
0 Replies
 
martinies
 
  1  
Thu 16 Jul, 2015 10:09 am
@oralloy,
Consciouness is consciousness. Our stoneage ancestors would have had the exact same on/off consciouness that we have and share with the general animal kingdom. Consciousness was as much the kingdom of heaven for our ancestors as for us. Theres is one consciousness in existance and that is your consciousness which is your conscience.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 06:50:21