R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Do you have an English language translation of the citation you offered? (Joking, but it is turgid reading for the uninitiated)
- Status
S
scipio337
Guest
True. Its a peer reviewed study, so they have to write if for their peers (of which I’m not
)
T
The_Serpent
Guest
Okay, I’m enjoying reading the posts of this thread! If we stretch the time line back, then Adam may be in the misty past. I’m thinking of the genealogy recorded in Genesis, and the Lord’s genealogy in the Gospel. Are there gaps in the Genesis genealogy that support stretching the time line back? In Matthews gospel he starts with, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Matthew 1:1. If you use his method of jumping generations, then the same might apply to the Genesis genealogy?
R
R_C
Guest
Let’s not forget the Genographic Project, either, as another source of insight 
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Interesting little note: One of the meanings of the name “Adam” is “Man of the red earth”. The oldest extant population of humans is the San people of the Kalahari, who live in an area where the dirt has a noticeably reddish color.
H
Holly3278
Guest
This is such an interesting thread. 
H
HansTrappist
Guest
View attachment 17597
I never said the earth was 6000 years old. Freudian slip on your part. I said that Adam was created around 6000 years ago, consistent with the calculations of the some of the greatest Biblical and Scientific minds of all time. Nice try.
Humanity does not “go back over 100,000 years”. What a load of nonsense! Neanderthals and other apes might go back that far (and even on that point science has not reached a consensus) but not Human Beings. The topic was the birthdate of the first Human Being, Adam, not the age of Neanderthals and other apes.
R
rossum
Guest
The Bible is not a science book. How many of those Scientific minds lived before the 20th century?
The species Homo sapiens does indeed go back that far. Assuming that your “humanity” also includes a soul, as well as a particular type of skeleton and DNA, then you may possibly be right. Science can tell us about bones, tools and DNA; it cannot tell us about souls.
rossum
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I don’t know when Adam lived, but there is an ancient tradition that says where he was buried. It’s the same place where Christ, the new Adam, was crucified. “And they brought him to the place called Gol′gotha (which means the place of a skull).” (Matt. 15:22) “The place of the skull” is referring to the skull of Adam. Everything mentioned in the gospels has a deep significance.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Wow!! I did not know that. Truly interesting. Thank you!
H
HansTrappist
Guest
The only reason that the 20th Century has been such a technologically advanced one is thanks to the foundation laid by all those God-believing, God-fearing scientists that came before the 20th century. The majority of them believed that the first Human, Adam, was born approx 6000 years ago. The scientific study that I cited above confirms their calculations and I have seen no other evidence to believe otherwise.
The Atheists are using Science to try and make fashionable the idea that Humans “evolved” from apes. What a joke!! Darwinian Evolution - The idea that natural selection acting on random mutation gave rise to complex, intelligent biological life (or “evolved” such life) - is pure fantasy. Evolution has never been observed or demonstrated. All the studies of Nature and in the Lab have shown a consistent result: Devolution. The studies of the malaria parasite, of E. coli, and of HIV demonstrate that there is actually a mathematical limit to what “evolution” can achieve in Nature. What “evolution” can’t do in simple organisms like Malaria, E. coli, and HIV (with reproduction rates that generate thousands of generations in a short amount of time, allowing devolution to be observed in real-time) it certainly can’t do in large mammals.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Again, I ask you: what information is “inaccurate”?
In case you didn’t read it, I will highlight the scientific assertions that I linked to earlier (cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html). You tell me which ones are inaccurate and why:
There have been a number of evidences recently that the human race is very young. For example,** a recent issue of* Science* (Collins, F., M. Guyer, and A. Chakravarti, “Variations on a Theme: Human DNA Sequence Variation,” Science 278:1580-1581, 28 November 1997, page 1581)** said that the age of the human race is roughly 1,000 to 10,000 generations:
… 1000 to 10,000 generations old, which is roughly the age of the human population, …
We review some of this evidence for the youth of the human race, including recent findings concerning mitochondrial DNA mutation rates which give even a much younger age than 1,000 generations.
Age estimates are obtained by observing differences between the DNA of different individuals, and are calculated using estimates of mutation rates. Mitochondrial DNA is often used for this; it is separate from the bulk of the human DNA, which is found in the cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA has about 16,000 base pairs and mutates, apparently, much faster than the nuclear DNA. Human mitochondrial DNA has been completely mapped, and all the coding regions are known, and the proteins or RNA for which they code. Some of the mitochondrial DNA does not code for anything, and is known as a control region. This region appears to mutate faster than any other region, because the variation among humans is greatest here.
Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.
This calculation is done in the following way. Let us consider two randomly chosen human beings, assuming all human beings initially have identical mitochondrial DNA. After 33 generations, two such random humans will probably differ by two mutations, since there will be two separate lines of inheritance and probably one mutation along each line. After 66 generations, two randomly chosen humans will differ by about four mutations. After 100 generations, they will differ by about six mutations. After 300 generations, they will differ by about 18 mutations, which is about the observed value.
We see that the mathematics is extremely simple. However, this timetable would revolutionize the history of humanity from a scientific standpoint, so biologists attempt to explain away the data. They do this in the following way: They assume that in this control region, most of the mutations are harmful. This means that individuals having more mutations are more likely to die, so that among surviving individuals, the number of mutations increases more slowly.
However, this explanation is implausible for the following reasons. First, we know that the control region does not code for any protein or RNA, so it is unlikely that mutations there would be harmful. Second, the fact that there is a lot of variation between individuals in this region suggests that mutations there do not have a harmful effect. Finally, one study noted that humans evolve (that is, accumulate mutations) 1.8 times faster in the control region than in silent sites in the mitochondrial DNA. (See ``Recent African origin of modern humans revealed by complete sequences of hominoid mitochondrial DNAs’’ by S. Horai, K. Hayasaka, R. Kondo, K. Tsugane, and N. Takahata, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995 Jan 17;92(2):532-536.) Silent sites do not affect the amino acid coded for, and so they generally do not have much of an effect. The fact that the control region evolves 1.8 times faster (that is, mutations accumulate 1.8 times faster) indicates that the control region has even less of an influence than the silent sites, also making it unlikely that mutations in the control region are harmful. A similar result was found for ducks, in which the control region evolves 4.4 times faster than the mitochondrial DNA in general. See Michael D. Sorenson and Robert C. Fleischer, Multiple independent transpositions of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences to the nucleus, PNAS 1996 93: pp. 15239-15243. This is additional evidence that the control region is not constrained much, and that mutations there are not very harmful.
Despite the sensational impact of this calculation on the chronology of the human race, we see that the most reasonable interpretation of the data is to assume that the human race is in fact about 6000 years old…
R
rossum
Guest
So, as I suspected, the scientists you were referring to were all pre-20th century. Hence none of those scientists would have seen the evidence from DNA.
Homo sapiens are members of the Hominidae, along with the other Great Apes. All the Hominidae evolved from a common ancestor. Souls did not evolve, so in your sense humans did not evolve, just our bodies did. I would also point out that whether or not someone is an Atheist has nothing to do with whether what they say is correct. Buddhism has far more gods than Christianity, so in numerical terms you are closer to Atheism than I am.
Personal incredulity is not a valid argument. I personally think that a talking snake and two magic trees is pure fantasy. Is that a valid argument against Christianity?
False. Your sources are lying to you.
False. Roundup resistance in Palmer Amaranth shows evolution, an increase in information: Gaines et al (2009) Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri.
Once again your sources are lying to you. Why do you use sources which give you false information?
Then there is no need to develop new antibiotics, according to you. If HIV is devolving then is will soon lose the ability to resist the current drugs and we can easily defeat it. Malaria has been around for a very long time, and it is still evolving to defeat new drugs. On your devolution scenario it would have gone extinct by now after so many generations.
Your “devolution” scenario is scientifically ludicrous. It is just propaganda put out by anti-evolution people to ‘explain’ the observed changes in Malaria, E. coli, HIV and many other organisms.
You are being fed incorrect information by your sources. You need to find better sources, ones that tell you truth, not lies.
rossum
H
HansTrappist
Guest
False.
Darwinian evolution has never been observed or demonstrated and your example of “Roundup resistance in Palmer Amaranth” is not an example of Darwinian (Random) Evolution. It is an example of random variation.
Random variation does explain some important details of life - like sickle hemoglobin, drug and insecticide resistance, and Darwin’s Galapagos finches, etc. - but it doesn’t come anywhere close to explaining the basic features of biological life, particularly the complexity found in the cell. Burning a bridge is easy. Single simple changes to old cellular machinery can help in dire circumstances are, but if just one or a few steps have to be jumped to gain a beneficial effect, such as with chloroquine resistance, random mutation starts breathing very hard. Darwinian processes can easily break molecular machinery. There is absolutely no evidence that Darwinian processes can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery - the kind found in the cell.
From the best evolutionary data available right now - the studies of HIV, E. coli, and P. falciparum - we now know that there is a mathematical limit to what random mutation can achieve in Nature where it counts. Beyond that limit nonrandom processes (Design) are required. You see, time is not the chief factor in evolution - population sizes are. The numbers of HIV and malaria in just the last 50 years has greatly surpassed the number of mammals that have lived on the earth in the past several hundred million years. What do we see? Evolution? No, we see Devolution. Darwinism doesn’t do much of anything, even with billions of years and all the cells in the world at its disposal. What greater numbers of parasites can’t do, lesser numbers of large animals can’t do either.
H
HansTrappist
Guest
Ohhhh, so anything that contradicts the golden calf of Darwinism is a “lie”?? Ahhhhh…I see. LOL!!!
And you have seriously misunderstood my use of the term Devolution. It has nothing to do with extinction. It means that Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution builds nothing new and when it does those changes are either severely limited or come at a very high cost to an existing genome.
And, yes, Malaria is one of the best case studies of “evolution” in action. It is “evolution” in realtime. Quit yelling “lie” every time you can’t handle the weight of the evidence.
The evolutionary pressure on humanity to come up with a mutational response to malaria is about as intense as it can get because if malaria was any more deadly or contagious than it is, there wouldn’t be a humanity worth talking about. Contrary to silly Darwinist claims, “evolution” is not an arms-race - It is trench warfare. Any beneficial changes that do occur by random processes are very rare and they come at a high price. For instance, the human genome has only diminished and been broken in its Darwinian battle against Malaria: sickle hemoglobin itself is not an advancement of the immune system; it’s a regression of the red blood cell. In the case of Malaria developing a resistance to chloroquine, this is indeed a beneficial random change, but it requires an astronomical population size. In the case of malaria, those numbers are available. In the case of larger creatures, they aren’t. No mutation that is of the same complexity (not the easiest mutation to be sure, but still only a shift of two amino acids) as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian (random) “evolution” in the line leading to human in the past ten million years. The Math doesn’t lie. Darwinian evolution - at least in the manner pontificated by the Richard Dawkins faithful - is pure fantasy.
R
rossum
Guest
This is Humpty Dumpty argumentation. Evolution is variation over time in the genome of a population. Changing genomes are evolution. The theory of evolution explains why they change. We observe change, as you agree. Therefore we observe evolution. Your sources are lying to you. I am not.
rossum
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Are you an expert on genetics?
R
rossum
Guest
I know enough to tell when I am being told rubbish.
Evolution happens. Any time we see a new resistant bacteria, we are seeing evolution. Those Roundup resistant plants were just another example.
Renaming evolution to “devolution” and then claiming that evolution does not happen, is about as effective as renaming Christianity to “Godianity” and then claiming that Christianity does not exist. Nobody needs to be an expert to see that such an argument holds no water.
rossum
H
HansTrappist
Guest
My source is Nature. Nature doesn’t lie. You are lying to yourself. That is why you keep using the word “lie.”
H
HansTrappist
Guest
You don’t even know the definition of “evolution” let alone know when you are “being told rubbish.”
Any time you see resistance in bacteria you are seeing random variation, which is either re-arranging or breaking pre-existing genetic information. You are not seeing “Evolution” - in the manner in which the term is used by Richard Dawkins. The best evolutionary data available - the studies of the parasitic diseases of humanity - demonstrates that random mutation wreaks havoc on a genome. The number of malarial parasites produced in a single year is a hundred times greater than the number of all mammals that have ever lived on earth in the past two hundred million years. In a hundred billion billion chances, no new cell forms or regulatory systems have been reported. What greater numbers of malaria can’t do, lesser numbers of mammals cannot do. There is absolutely no evidence from the study of malaria, E. coli, and HIV that random processes lead to gene regulatory networks of the complexity of cell differentiation - that is, class-level biological distinctions. Nature herself has conducted the experiment and the results are in. Darwinian “evolution” is falsified. :sad_yes:
Even when random processes “help” they breaks things much more easily than they build them. Random processes cannot explain the mind-numbing complexity we see in Nature, particularly the cell. Species in which there are fewer organisms than malaria will take proportionately longer to develop a cluster of mutations of the complexity of malaria’s resistance to the drug chloroquine. The ratio of humanoid creatures in the past ten million years to the number of malaria parasites needed in order for the mutation allowing chloroquine resistance to develop, is one to a hundred million. On average, for humans to achieve a mutation of the complexity of the malaria’s chloroquine-resistance mutation, humans would have to wait a hundred million times ten million years. That’s many times the age of the Universe. In other words, rossum, you did not get here by chance. Human beings did not “evolve” by random mutations.
- Status