Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…3839414344…78

Comments

  • #1202
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    J C wrote: »
    They're duty bound to not mislead the court and therefore the truth matters to them.

    They may argue mitigating circumstances or against aggravating circumstances on behalf of their client ... but they don't tell lies.
    :D

    So we've to break through a profound naivety as well?!?


  • #1203
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You have absolutely no basis for equating computer code and genetic information, you're only doing so because it suits your argument.

    It would be like comparing wood and metal because you can make chairs out of both of them.
    Computer code and genetic information are both examples of Complex Functional Specified Information ... and where the author of such information is established it is found to be intelligent.:)


  • #1204
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    endacl wrote: »
    :D

    So we've to break through a profound naivety as well?!?
    Guys ... your worldview is imploding ... and ye want to argue over the probity of officers of the courts????:pac:

    cognitive dissonance ... or what? :eek:


  • #1205
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And wood and metal are both materials chairs can be made from (MCMF). That doesn't mean they have similar properties or come from a similar source.

    Edit: So your equating of genetic material and computer code is akin to someone saying - chairs can be made out of wood or metal. Wood is biological. Therefore, metal must be biological.
    Wood and metal have nothing to do with information ... so your point is mute.:pac:


  • #1206
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    J C wrote: »
    She isn't called Mitochondrial Eve for nothing!!!
    ... everybody is descended from her.
    ... and all men are descended from Y-Chromosome Adam as well.:eek::pac:
    You really know sweet fcuk all about this subject. Case in point, not all men are, or rather were descended from "Y-Chromosome Adam". Quite the number of male lines have died out in the interim. EG Mungo man in Australia. His DNA showed different matrilineal and patrilineal lines from both X Eve and Y Adam. Neandertals had a very different set of DNA "Adams" and "Eves". Homo heidelbergensis had even more. Yet you claim they were humans like us? Like I said earlier how many Adams and Eves did this God of yours create?

    More, if your tale is true, then why did your same God leave all sorts of evidence that completely upturns his "word"? He doesn't sound too clued in. Well you wouldn't expect some Bronze age farmers with pretensions of cultural grandeur to be particularly clued in. It just seems daft to follow that and make it reality. Well unless you believe as some of the more fevered medieval types did that fossils are "devil stones". Even they knew such things made their dogma shaky.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    J C wrote: »
    Wood and metal have nothing to do with information ... so your point is mute.:pac:

    I wonder if mute points evolved from moot points...


  • #1208
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The only thing that would change about my 'worldview' if current evolutionary theory was proven wrong would be the fact that there's suddenly a whole lot of new research to be done in my field. Definitely not a bad thing from my point of view.
    ... so nothing would change for you ... only your determination to prove that 'it did itself' would increase.

    ... and ye criticize people of Faith about being 'fixed in their ideas' ... or trying to make the evidence fit with their ideas.:eek:


  • #1209
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ziphius wrote: »
    I wonder if mute points evolved from moot points...
    When it come to comparing the physical (wood and metal) with the virtual (information) ... the point is both mute and moot!!!:)


  • #1210
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No, what I'm saying is if overwhelming evidence came out that evolutionary theory as we know it was incorrect, then studying the alternative instead would be interesting. I wouldn't frantically try to prove something that the evidence has turned against. I'll leave that to the creationists :pac:
    ... but there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory as we know it is incorrect.
    ... and all I have seen is denial and obfuscation ... and no acceptance or study of the alternative.


  • #1211
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'll ask you, for the 89,657th time on boards, to produce this evidence.

    Inconveniently, the man in the sky is in possession of the evidence:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??


  • #1213
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    AngryHippie wrote: »
    Inconveniently, the man in the sky is in possession of the evidence:rolleyes:

    Actually, it's that he has this evidence, but he won't show it to us maybe because there's a secret cabal of "Darwinists" with a ninja army that suppresses "creation scientists" by killing them off...or some mad bullshit like that.


  • #1214
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    J C wrote: »
    ... but there is overwhelming evidence that evolutionary theory as we know it is incorrect.
    ... and all I have seen is denial and obfuscation ... and no acceptance or study of the alternative.

    And the age of the earth , don't forget that .
    The dating methods which are inadequate and which use circular logic .

    And how god made the earth to look old and how god made dinosaurs just to kill them .

    And how the bible which is a non changing constant source of tales and stories is more accurate than science which is constantly changing and adapting .

    And how god allows innocent babies to get HIV , cancer etc .

    And the fact that the bible is to be taken literally and that people can survive inside whales for 3 days .

    Actually if this Jesus guy could turn my water into wine i would be well impressed .

    The bible is hypocritical . No it isn't .


  • #1215
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    kingchess wrote: »
    do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??


    Gods plan duh.


  • #1216
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wibbs wrote: »
    You really know sweet fcuk all about this subject. Case in point, not all men are, or rather were descended from "Y-Chromosome Adam".
    ... but here's the thing ... they are.
    Quote :-
    "In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is an informal name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree)."

    Wibbs wrote: »
    Quite the number of male lines have died out in the interim. EG Mungo man in Australia. His DNA showed different matrilineal and patrilineal lines from both X Eve and Y Adam. Neandertals had a very different set of DNA "Adams" and "Eves". Homo heidelbergensis had even more. Yet you claim they were humans like us? Like I said earlier how many Adams and Eves did this God of yours create?
    ... it was mitochondrial DNA inheritance the case of Eve
    Quote:-
    "Though this evidence does not disprove the idea of Neanderthal and modern human admixture, it shows that moderns and Neanderthals did not have more genetic similarities during the Pleistocene that were subsequently lost. If interbreeding did occur, Neanderthal mtDNA sequences could have been lost due to genetic drift. ":cool:
    Wibbs wrote: »
    More, if your tale is true, then why did your same God leave all sorts of evidence that completely upturns his "word"? He doesn't sound too clued in. Well you wouldn't expect some Bronze age farmers with pretensions of cultural grandeur to be particularly clued in. It just seems daft to follow that and make it reality. Well unless you believe as some of the more fevered medieval types did that fossils are "devil stones". Even they knew such things made their dogma shaky.
    What are you talking about?:eek:


  • #1217
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    do you find it strange,J C, that the only people who believe in creation theory are people who have a strong belief in the bible/koran? t. if the science for creation theory is so compelling you would think that other people of other faiths and none would come up with this theory,with out consulting the bible?,that the facts would lead these people to the same conclusions-like 2 plus 2 is equal to 4.I suppose you will say its their world view or maybe the devil leading them astray that they do not??
    ... their worldview is so strong that the refuse to believe that God (or even an unknown intelligence) created life ... even when the idea of it 'creating itself' is both logically and evidentially unsupported.:)


  • #1218
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    ... but here's the thing ... they are.
    Quote :-
    "In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is an informal name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree)."

    Don't stop there with that quote, JC.

    Quote continues:

    However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual.

    Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries also have descendants alive today...


  • #1219
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Even if that is the case, it doesn't have the implications that you'd like it to.
    Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
    ... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
    ... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.


  • #1220
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
    ... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
    ... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

    Is it not that it means, that while decended from them, we are also descended from their contemporaries and antecedents ? So there is nothing particlarly special about mitochondrial Eve or Y Chrome Adam ?


  • #1221
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Facts are facts ... as you guys keep saying ...
    ... so science has proven that we are all descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosome Adam) ...
    ... sounds like the Bible was correct, after all, when it said that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.

    Unfortunately, the following proves the biblical account is wrong (i.e. too recent, by far)
    The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000 years.[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Don't stop there with that quote, JC.

    Quote continues:

    However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual.

    Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time.[1] His other male contemporaries also have descendants alive today...
    ... you can hang onto that, if you want ... the evidence is clear that we are all descended from one man and one man only.
    ... of course, we are descended from many other different men down our family trees ... just like your father and my father were different people ... but none of these was Adam ... and nobody is arguing that they were.


  • #1223
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Yes, the facts are everyone has genetic material from one man.

    Your interpretation of that fact (that it verifies biblical myths) is unwarranted.
    ... it certainly is in line with the Biblical account ... of one man from which the entire Human Race is descended.


  • #1224
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    ... their worldview is so strong that the refuse to believe that God (or even an unknown intelligence) created life ... even when the idea of it 'creating itself' is both logically and evidentially unsupported.:)

    and they can see the logic of darwin theory:because the facts,the science leads them to that conclusion,and no scientist would come up with creation theory because no facts exist to lead them down that road:rolleyes:(unless their world view is based on the bible:rolleyes::rolleyes::p)


  • #1225
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    ... it certainly is in line with the Biblical account ... of one man from which the entire Human Race is descended.

    Just not on the timescale? So more like man was created 150000 to 200000 years ago ?


  • #1226
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The fact my carpet is blue is in line with my account that unicorns painted it that colour 10 seconds ago. That doesn't make my account accurate.

    But it means it is a plausible theory. Which you can test, refine, or revise later as your knowledge improves. Which is good science.


  • #1227
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    J C wrote: »
    Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm
    oddly enough that doesn't necessarily mean that 23 chromosomes were also bottle necked at the same time.

    and the timescale involved is something like 150,000 years


  • #1228
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Nope, can't test it. The unicorns are invisible to all but me.

    I have this book I wrote that says it's true though.

    So now, not only do we have a theory, but an eye witness. The case for the unicorns and the leading theory is reinforced.


  • #1229
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    But what if someone found the receipt for said carpet and traced it back to the factory where it was made, making the stunning revelation that it was in fact dyed blue there? :eek:

    Than that looks like a better answer, and the unicorn idea is dropped. We then say the carpet was probably dyed blue in a factory.


  • #1230
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    My mate pat reckons the receipt was left there by the unicorns though. They like to mess with people.

    We consider that possibility. But based on the reason that we have no evidence for unicorns, but do of factories being able to die carpets blue, the die factory is still the leading theory. Pat must try harder to back up his theory, or provide us evidence of unicorns.


  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    OK. That's enough. I'll leave it to the more patient posters on the 'actually know what they're talking about team'. Best of luck to you with the Ingenue and the Eel.

    I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered. They're taking the pi55.

    Holybabyjebus! Nearly ten years of stubborn, wilful stupidity, Really? Can evolution run in reverse? Please tell me he hasn't bred....


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement