socks 32,253 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Here are the people I was talking about ... Amazing ........ 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) Do you want me to prove that all life on earth evolved from one common ancester? Actually mate I’m pretty sure you can – or at least come credibly close. This is going to go way over the god-botherer’s heads, but here’s a rough outline: Since its proposal in the 1960s, the molecular clock has become an essential tool in many areas of evolutionary biology, including systematics, molecular ecology, and conservation genetics. The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if the molecular clock hypothesis holds true, this hypothesis serves as an extremely useful method for estimating evolutionary timescales. I like that, but it seems that it is very much a system based on the assumption that all things are inherently related in the first place. Is that right? So let me get this right, using the globally recognised human = 50% banana, human = 99% chimpanzee numbers. Saying that 99% is close enough to double the banana's 50%, I am just going to half the numbers. So by this theory a human had a direct ancestor from a banana twice as long ago as the direct ancestory of a Chimpanzee? Is that right? 50% banana is half the 99% chimpanzee number, so it must be double the time period in gap. Or would it be a 1xtime period for a 1% Chimpanzee to human gap, compared to 50xtime period 50% human to banana. Which is right? Please note, I am not being awkward, just trying to better understand. Edited September 10, 2014 by RemyBolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 remy i would have to disagree with you mate,but you love the lord happy days. i would like to state that kj bible clearly says THE first day THE second day THE third day,not millions of years in between,thats heressey. an god said let there be light,an there was light, an god saw the light,that it was good,an god divided the light from the darkness an god called the light day,an the darkness he called night. an the EVENING an the MORNING were the FIRST day. i dont know how you cant see that remy but its pretty clear the evening an morning were the first day. lets define evoloution again very slippy term,thats how they slide it in with science,when evoloution has helped nothing in advancements of technology Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ggib 370 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 remy i would have to disagree with you mate,but you love the lord happy days. i would like to state that kj bible clearly says THE first day THE second day THE third day,not millions of years in between,thats heressey. an god said let there be light,an there was light, an god saw the light,that it was good,an god divided the light from the darkness an god called the light day,an the darkness he called night. an the EVENING an the MORNING were the FIRST day. i dont know how you cant see that remy but its pretty clear the evening an morning were the first day. lets define evoloution again very slippy term,thats how they slide it in with science,when evoloution has helped nothing in advancements of technology so an Atari from the 80s that played square graphic tennis to Xbox is that not technological evolution? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 13,031 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Remy if all life started from the same source ie primodial goo then it stands to reason that all life is basically the same Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 remy i would have to disagree with you mate,but you love the lord happy days. i would like to state that kj bible clearly says THE first day THE second day THE third day,not millions of years in between,thats heressey. an god said let there be light,an there was light, an god saw the light,that it was good,an god divided the light from the darkness an god called the light day,an the darkness he called night. an the EVENING an the MORNING were the FIRST day. i dont know how you cant see that remy but its pretty clear the evening an morning were the first day. lets define evoloution again very slippy term,thats how they slide it in with science,when evoloution has helped nothing in advancements of technology or science. cosmic evoloution the origin of time space an matter,from nothing to big bang chemical evoloution all elements evolved from hydrogen stellar evoloution stars an planets formed from gas clouds organic evoloution non living matter evolved to living matter macro evoloution animals an plants change from one type to another micro evoloution variations within the kind now that is what evoloution is all about,fact. the top five are faith have never ever been seen despite what people on thread are saying. the last one is micro evo this is how they slip it in with the rest of the non scientifial fairytale. evoloution is defined above an i wouldnt say micro evo is evolution its a variation in the kind to adapt to its surroundings. sure i thought eviloution took millions of years of time,so you can take micro out of that fairytale,cause its happened. evoliution is about macro evo;some kind evolving into another like a cat to a dog,thats what their main focus is yet there not one bit of evidence.animals produce after there kind an thats what we see everywhere. thats there main focus proving we came from a boiling brotth of complex chemicals,that washed out of rocks an suddenly came alive,an found a mate to reproduce an gradually over time lots of it,thats the king of evo,time,evolved to humans. long ago an far away thats there stance. yet science has proved undoubtley this is impossible. so take out micro its nothing to do with evoloution its science we see today animals an plants producing after their kind. mutations an natural selection has nothing to do with with evoloution either,mutations is a jumble of existing informati. on resulting in loss or hinderance for the animal or insect. thats not evoloution thats a loss not a gain. natural selection doesnt create anything it selects with whats available an thats it nothing else. oh i ment to say they dont talk about top four much cause its impossible scientifically. i ask anyone to show me any of top five or a helpful mutation. keep up the good work gnasher Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Muddy 141 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Do you want me to prove that all life on earth evolved from one common ancester? Actually mate I’m pretty sure you can – or at least come credibly close. This is going to go way over the god-botherer’s heads, but here’s a rough outline: Since its proposal in the 1960s, the molecular clock has become an essential tool in many areas of evolutionary biology, including systematics, molecular ecology, and conservation genetics. The molecular clock hypothesis states that DNA and protein sequences evolve at a rate that is relatively constant over time and among different organisms. A direct consequence of this constancy is that the genetic difference between any two species is proportional to the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. Therefore, if the molecular clock hypothesis holds true, this hypothesis serves as an extremely useful method for estimating evolutionary timescales. I like that, but it seems that it is very much a system based on the assumption that all things are inherently related in the first place. Is that right? So let me get this right, using the globally recognised human = 50% banana, human = 99% chimpanzee numbers. Saying that 99% is close enough to double the banana's 50%, I am just going to half the numbers. So by this theory a human had a direct ancestor from a banana twice as long ago as the direct ancestory of a Chimpanzee? Is that right? 50% banana is half the 99% chimpanzee number, so it must be double the time period in gap. Or would it be a 1xtime period for a 1% Chimpanzee to human gap, compared to 50xtime period 50% human to banana. Which is right? Please note, I am not being awkward, just trying to better understand. Um, well I guess if the human/chimp ancestor was 20ish mya and the human/banana was pretty soon after the first multicellular life – say 500 million mya – your second calculation would be closest, although still some way off. I’m not sure the 99%, 50% thing is all that accurate. There’s no real assumption that all things are inherently related as such; someone just discovered that some genetic changes are happening at a constant rate, and someone else realised you could work it back to find common ancestors. That’s how science works – one discovery leads to another. If you’re interested you should definitely google genetic clock or molecular clock. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 13,031 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Fraz would you believe it I actually found out today I work with a theoligan and I showed him one page of what you have posted and he said you are full of crap "I quote" lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 oh an theres a sinister plot behind evoloution,if you dig a little you will find. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 well im stating the truth mate nit lies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 13,031 Posted September 10, 2014 Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 Lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shepp 2,285 Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) remy i would have to disagree with you mate,but you love the lord happy days. i would like to state that kj bible clearly says THE first day THE second day THE third day,not millions of years in between,thats heressey. an god said let there be light,an there was light, an god saw the light,that it was good,an god divided the light from the darkness an god called the light day,an the darkness he called night. an the EVENING an the MORNING were the FIRST day. i dont know how you cant see that remy but its pretty clear the evening an morning were the first day. lets define evoloution again very slippy term,thats how they slide it in with science,when evoloution has helped nothing in advancements of technology Deluded rubbish! Edited September 11, 2014 by shepp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RemyBolt 420 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Remy if all life started from the same source ie primodial goo then it stands to reason that all life is basically the same And that's one of the issues Creationists have. I believe in evolution for all species, except human. Genetically we are one 100'000th of 1% different from that 'original person' that they excavated a while back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mushroom 13,031 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Mate we basically share the majority of our DNA with all life on this planetl stands to reason if you believe they evolved from a source then we came from that source too, no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tandors 888 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 What about consciousness? How has that evolved from random mutations or adaptations? If you are an evolutionist we (European man) are the pinnacle of evolution capable of space travel and all the incredible inventions or where we created? Impossible to say i'm sure the bible suggests there where other people when Adam and Eve where created in his image, Adam meaning to redden or blush, a physiological trait only european people have. There's a fun racial tangent for the thread that I have shoe horned in lol. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.