evolution

[hecd2]

Yup, the complete neanderthal genome sequencing by Richard Green et al in August 2008, confirms that neanderthal falls outside the range of human mtDNA variation, implying this hominid was a distinct species, and also confirming the lineage divergence age.

Green, R. et al (2008) A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing
Cell, Volume 134, Issue 3, 416-426, 8 August 2008

See also Green et al, *Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA, *Nature 444, 330 - 336 (16th November 2006), which is as far as I know, the largest published nuclear sequence (although subsequently, some contamination with modern human DNA was uncovered) - it will be interesting to see a complete Neaderthal genome - a complete mammoth genome has just been published.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

I guess we’re not going to get any evidence for those “gaping gaps” in evolutionary theory.

As usual.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, it was unkind of me to doubt Gary’s degree, and I apologise to him.

I have to admit, that was my first reaction, too. “An anthropologist who doesn’t know that there are significant differences in skulls between H. erectus and H. sapiens? Impossible.”

But then I have an undergraduate degree in bacteriology. It’s been about 35 years since I did a Gram stain. I had to think about it a bit to remember the procedure. And there isn’t much that’s more basic to bacteriology than the Gram stain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I guess we’re not going to get any evidence for those “gaping gaps” in evolutionary theory.

As usual.

if there is some particular position you would like me too take

let me know what it is, ill look it up and debate with you

 

[The_Barbarian]

if there is some particular position you would like me too take

let me know what it is, ill look it up and debate with you

I (and at least one other) would like to see your substantiation for your claim that evolutionary theory has “gaping gaps.”

When do you think you’ll be doing that?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I (and at least one other) would like to see your substantiation for your claim that evolutionary theory has “gaping gaps.”

When do you think you’ll be doing that?

when you can offer some evidence of said claim, when do you think you will be doing that?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
I (and at least one other) would like to see your substantiation for your claim that evolutionary theory has “gaping gaps.”

When do you think you’ll be doing that?

when you can offer some evidence of said claim, when do you think you will be doing that?

You’ve been reminded more than once. But one more time…

be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention"

If you no longer believe this, just say so. Or, if you still want to assert that it’s true, substantiate the claim.

Or dodge it again. Your choice.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Barbarian asks:
I (and at least one other) would like to see your substantiation for your claim that evolutionary theory has “gaping gaps.”

When do you think you’ll be doing that?

You’ve been reminded more than once. But one more time…

be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention"

If you no longer believe this, just say so. Or, if you still want to assert that it’s true, substantiate the claim.

Or dodge it again. Your choice.

i assume you are parsing this post to generate your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brady01 View Post
Should catholic believers believe in evolution??? that people were monkeys to cave men and to human ?? Should we believing in this?? As most of it sounds very correct

yes, you may accept it, but be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention.

i would suggest that you research well before acceptance on a superficial level.

that said, i accept its generalities myself. i don’t see it as anything but a mechanism of Divine Creation.

you may be under the impression that departing from a literal interpretation of scripture, somehow lends credence to its detractors.

that particular fallacy is the result of Sola Scriptura, if this is the root of the problem, you may well take solace in looking into the relationship between Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church

normally one interprets the meaning of literature in the context of the entire passage or work, one also legally interprets a contract in light of its context, i.e with all addendum’s and clauses taken in to account.

now, if you wish to continue to parse five words from the passage and assign them some meaning out of context thats fine, i am enjoying this debate.

also, you have admitted that there are such arguments, you simply discount them for your own reasons. so, once again. which is true that there are no such arguments, or there are and you simply dont like them?

i think maybe, one might have taken offense that i suggested that such arguments existed to a poster enquiring as to the relationship between their faith and and accepting a ‘theory’

so, as you can see. i am dodging nothing, your opinion is simply wrong.

that said, if you are just looking for a challenging debate, then please tell me the position on the issue that you would like me to take and i will be happy to do so. i am not the man who was accused of not having his stated degree. no amount of condescension or ridicule will cause my retreat.:tiphat:

 

[The_Barbarian]

Since you again declined to support your assertion, we will have to conclude you either know it is false, or that you know of no evidence to support it.

As you know, I am aware of arguments for such gaps, but none of them stand up under inspection. This may be why you aren’t willing to present such arguments. Or you may have copied the assertion from elsewhere under the impression that whoever gave it to you knew what he was talking about.

Hard to say. But it doesn’t really matter why you continue to dodge the question, does it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since you again declined to support your assertion, we will have to conclude you either know it is false, or that you know of no evidence to support it.

once again, there is no assertion, and no matter how long you may choose to say so, you will be wrong each time.

that means there is no assertion to believe is false (though you admit such arguments exist yourself)

any one could look up a website to find all the evidence one could wish to present, if one were of a mind to. your opinion of it would hardly matter. it doesn’t seem to matter to others who care to take those positions here. i have an extremely thick skin so it seems unlikely to bother me either.

the fact that you cannot tell no assertion was made

As you know, I am aware of arguments for such gaps, but none of them stand up under inspection.

funny enough, i dont know that, i have yet to see anyone win an argument by force of reason on this thread, though i have seen some ridicule people until they left. hardly convincing to me.

This may be why you aren’t willing to present such arguments

or i may just not be the type one can bully, ridicule, or cajole into something.

Or you may have copied the assertion from elsewhere under the impression that whoever gave it to you knew what he was talking about.

or i may have just been making the observation that such arguments exist.

but let me assure you that i do not plagiarize.

Hard to say.

cant be too hard, it doesn’t seem to stop you

But it doesn’t really matter why you continue to dodge the question, does it

there is nothing to dodge but a case of bad reading comprehension, a lack of knowledge of how to approach the interpretation of the written word.

your opinion is simply uninformed and wrong

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yep. He’s not going to support his assertion. We’ll have to conclude that you realize it’s false by now.

If your new story is that it wasn’t you who made that assertion, then you need to explain why there is neither quotation marks nor an attribution for it, when you presented it here. The assertions that it is not your claim, and that you do not plagiarize are logically inconsistent.