Why are atheists so unhappy?

[StillWondering]

Actually l know a great deal about it, i have also studied evolutionary biology at university.

“Adam and Eve being the original parents of humanity does not in any way negate evolution.” as a couple is does.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

I don’t mean this in an insulting way, i just want to get an idea of how deeply you have looked at the evidence. Have you ever looked that the evidence for evolution from scientific sources?

Yes, but having a corpse having a mitochondrial named after Eve does not mean it is the Eve spoken about within the Church. I will present some quotes from the articles you linked:

“Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans.”

“Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today’s population.[10]”

“While the name implies that Y-chromosomal Adam was the only living male of his time, it is important to understand that he probably co-existed with a large population of human males. None of Y-chromosomal Adam’s male contemporaries, however, have a direct unbroken male line to the present day.”

Note that the observations state that these two particular human lived among males and females during their time. Their cells are named thus due to either a matrilineal ancestor or a patrilineal ancestor, respectively. This does not imply that they are in any way the first of their species. In fact, it could be that the ancestors of “Y-chromosomal Adam” man is a decedent of Adam and Eve. There is no evidence this Adam and his compatriots are the first true humans, it is that we came from them. Because of the labeling, it is not definitive that Adam and Eve are not real even if there is a person mentioned with the Eve name and a person mentioned with the Adam name and they existed 100, 000 years apart.

I would like to see more information if they are available.

 

[StillWondering]

After lengthier reflections, the two articles linked are supportive of the possibility of Adam and Eve in the sense that all humans are directly connected to great ancestors. At least for thousands of years, no new humans came along. New humans would surely devastate the Adam and Eve concept if these new humans are completely unrelated by ancestry with the two lines you have linked.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yes, but having a corpse having a mitochondrial named after Eve does not mean it is the Eve spoken about within the Church. I will present some quotes from the articles you linked:

“Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans.”

“Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today’s population.[10]”

“While the name implies that Y-chromosomal Adam was the only living male of his time, it is important to understand that he probably co-existed with a large population of human males. None of Y-chromosomal Adam’s male contemporaries, however, have a direct unbroken male line to the present day.”

Note that the observations state that these two particular human lived among males and females during their time. Their cells are named thus due to either a matrilineal ancestor or a patrilineal ancestor, respectively. This does not imply that they are in any way the first of their species. In fact, it could be that the ancestors of “Y-chromosomal Adam” man is a decedent of Adam and Eve. There is no evidence this Adam and his compatriots are the first true humans, it is that we came from them. Because of the labeling, it is not definitive that Adam and Eve are not real even if there is a person mentioned with the Eve name and a person mentioned with the Adam name and they existed 100, 000 years apart.

I would like to see more information if they are available.

Well there is no such thing as the first of a species (As in an individual first). Thats not how speciation works.

Do you mind if i share with you the evidence that im my mind makes the theory of evolution unquestionable?

 

[StillWondering]

Well there is no such thing as the first od a species. Thats not how speciation works.

Do you mind if i share with you the evidence that im my mind makes the theory of evolution unquestionable?

Certainly. Also, the article I linked earlier about looking at the fossil record does not mention religion. It simply states the broad view of evolution and how evidence is lacking.

I am certainly happy to be enlightened.

 

[StillWondering]

Well there is no such thing as the first of a species. Thats not how speciation works.

Do you mind if i share with you the evidence that im my mind makes the theory of evolution unquestionable?

I don’t think there is clear uncontroversial proof that a species appears at a definative moment with definitive ancestors. Fossils are puzzles after all, not simply solutions.

In any case, as long as we do not see two truly and unrelated ancestral groups of humans, the Church’s teaching is still unshaken. Catholics, by my understanding, are fine to believe in evolution, no evolution or anything in between as long as it does not violate that a single man and a single women are the source of all our ancestry and that all humans including this first couple definitively have souls that God created at the moment of their existence.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Certainly. Also, the article I linked earlier about looking at the fossil record does not mention religion. It simply states the broad view of evolution and how evidence is lacking.

I am certainly happy to be enlightened.

I read it there where a few strawmans. However the fossil record is but no means the strongest evidence for evolution, and the significance of unique character combinations can be difficult and lengthy to discribe over text. Especially for one as illiterate as myself.

Are you fimiliar with the structure of chromosomes and how they replicate? Basically chromosomes contain “markers” at the end of them called telomeres.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomeres

“During cell division, the enzymes that duplicate the chromosome and its DNA cannot continue their duplication all the way to the end of the chromosome. If cells divided without telomeres, they would lose the end of their chromosomes, and the necessary information it contains. (In 1972, James Watson named this phenomenon the “end replication problem”.) The telomeres are disposable buffers blocking the ends of the chromosomes and are consumed during cell division and replenished by an enzyme, the telomerase reverse transcriptase.”

They also contain regions of DNA called centromeres.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centromere

“The centromeres are, together with telomeres and origins of replication, one of the essential parts of any eukaryotic chromosome. The centromere usually contains specific types of DNA sequences which are in higher eukaryotes typically tandem repetitive sequences, often called “satellite DNA”. These sequences bind specific proteins called “cen”-Proteins. During mitosis the centromeres can be identified in particular during the metaphase stage as a constriction at the chromosome. At this centromeric constriction the two mostly identical halves of the chromosome, the sister chromatids, are held together until late metaphase. During mitotic division, a transient structure called kinetochore is formed on top of the centromeres. The kinetochores are the sites where the spindle fibers attach. Kinetochores and the spindle apparatus are responsible for the movement of the two sister chromatids to opposite poles of dividing cell nucleus during anaphase. Usually the mitosis is immediately followed by a cell division cytokinesis. However, mitosis and cytokinesis are separate processes and can be uncoupled.”

So what does this have to do with evidence for evolution??

I’ll let Prof Ken Miller take over, Hes a catholic by the way

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

This just one of many but we will take them one at a time.

 

[StillWondering]

So what does this have to do with evidence for evolution??

I’ll let Prof Ken Miller take over, Hes a catholic by the way

youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

This just one of many but we will take them one at a time.

I am familiar and fascinated by microbiology. In fact, seeing now energy and stored, utilized, and transported in cells is one of the many beautiful and amazing things that makes me appreciate God even more.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I am familiar and fascinated by microbiology. In fact, seeing now energy and stored, utilized, and transported in cells is one of the many beautiful and amazing things that makes me appreciate God even more.

So how would you explain the fact human chromosome two is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes?

 

[StillWondering]

I do admit that my dissatisfaction of the total breath of evolution across all specials does not prevent the possibility of human evolution. (Which as stated that if facts show there are only one pair of ancestors, all is well for a Catholic. I believe this is way the professor in the link is comfortable in stating his religious affiliation. Many extremely brilliant people that had great contributions to poetry, music, law, literature, physics, mathematics, and many other categories were or are practicing Catholics. )

I have a few questions, as I always do when presented with information:

First, since telomeres by their function prevents chromosomes from fusing, what particular mechanism occurred to achieve this development?

Second, if this had happened, what prevents the remaining chromosomes in our bodies from fusing as well, causing drastic physiological and mental changes such as found between prehistoric apes and prehistoric man?

Third, if this could happen, why do we not see other variations among humans in our time. Can fossils of other ape and human-like creatures demonstrate a variance of say chromosome 4 and chromosome 12 having fused and creating a new species?

Fourth, do we see this evidence in any other genus among the animal or plant kingdoms?

Fifth, does replication stop when it reaches the “telomere” that is in the middle of human chromosome 2 or does it continue past it and functions as if it is exclusive precursor RNA when transcribed?

And lastly till further information is available, if this is so, how can we be sure they are telomere’s?

 

[StillWondering]

So how would you explain the fact human chromosome two is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes?

I believe I would need answers to the questions I have before I can validly consider this on a technical level.

I would also be interested in a comparison, a bit more detailed, between chromosome 2 in humans and the two corresponding chromosomes in apes as well as how the other chromosomes line up as one to one correspondence between the two species. If they do not line up, then this would not work.

I would like a copy of the journal article he referenced with this information.

 

[StillWondering]

I am currently reading about this professor and looking for a contact info to ask him these questions directly. Note that “he furthers the argument that a belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive” as described by spock.com/Kenneth-R.-Miller .

This is the claim made by the previous Catholic members here. While I need details to be convinced about human evolution, what evidence evolution theories as a whole has given still is weak to me as described and explained in previous posts.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I do admit that my dissatisfaction of the total breath of evolution across all specials does not prevent the possibility of human evolution. (Which as stated that if facts show there are only one pair of ancestors, all is well for a Catholic. I believe this is way the professor in the link is comfortable in stating his religious affiliation. Many extremely brilliant people that had great contributions to poetry, music, law, literature, physics, mathematics, and many other categories were or are practicing Catholics. )

Ken Millier is one of the leading supporters of evolution on earth, i’m sure he has no objection to any of the theory.

**I have a few questions, as I always do when presented with information:

First, since telomeres by their function prevents chromosomes from fusing, what particular mechanism occurred to achieve this development?**

**Second, if this had happened, what prevents the remaining chromosomes in our bodies from fusing as well, causing drastic physiological and mental changes such as found between prehistoric apes and prehistoric man?

Third, if this could happen, why do we not see other variations among humans in our time. Can fossils of other ape and human-like creatures demonstrate a variance of say chromosome 4 and chromosome 12 having fused and creating a new species?

Fourth, do we see this evidence in any other genus among the animal or plant kingdoms? **

Chromosome fusion is a fairly common event in the animal kingdom, heres a paper about it nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/12/2908

There are also plenty of genetic disorders surrounding chromosomes.

learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/predictdisorder/
**
Fifth, does replication stop when it reaches the “telomere” that is in the middle of human chromosome 2 or does it continue past it and functions as if it is exclusive precursor RNA when transcribed?**

Yes it carries on, i’m sorry to say i cant remember this details off hand, but i have it in a text book which is up stairs. I’m in by bed and its 1.45 am. I will post the reason tomorrow.

And lastly till further information is available, if this is so, how can we be sure they are telomere’s?

The exact sequence of the DNA is known, there is no doubt they are telomeres. Its 100%

 

[redhen]

I’m sorry, but I do not see it as sound in any way. Maybe you need to learn more about it. Here is an article from a scientist with a similar understanding as myself : catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0042.html

“Most scientists now consider Neanderthal man to have been a modern man with rickets.”

Dr. Robin Bernhoft is a medical doctor. He’s not a evolutionary biologist, paleontologist or physical anthropologist. He’s out of his field. Homo sapiens neanderthalis is a different species than homo sapiens sapiens. The first draft of the neanderthal genome was published earlier this year, which confirms this. eva.mpg.de/neandertal/

This medical surgeon is also wrong on his claim that there are no transitional fossils, there are in fact several. This is my favourite tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

 

[redhen]

I would like a copy of the journal article he referenced with this information.

nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/pdf/nature03466.pdf

 

[josie_L]

What claim have i made?

You claim based on the lack of (concrete) evidence there is no God (remember you reject deism too), the thing is you will never get the evidence you seek as Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God (and you choose to disregard other means of finding truth, i.e., philosophy). There are also other claims you’ve made, i.e., morals progress (based on your worldview that there is no God).

p.s. You can deny all you want that you’ve made no claims but you could not very well argue with us if we didn’t have differing points of view (and that you argue it vociferously means you hold to certain truths).

 

[StillWondering]

Thanks for the links. I have saved them on my computer. I guess that temporally ends this debate about evolution for me.

Sorry everyone for taking it on this tangent =).

 

[SHW]

Let say i agreed with your hypothesis, which i don’t, why would the first cause have to be a god?

Call it a super-intelligent “supernatural power” if you wish, then, because this “intelligent being” is not like us mere humans. The universe did not create itself. Some “super intelligent” supernatural power started creation in motion by providing the necessary components for its “beginning” and also knows its “ending” and also can give humans everlasting life if It so chooses because It has the power over life and death.

Some “supernatural power” did create the universe and all that is in it. We Christians, however, call this Supernatural Power “God” because He has revealed to us that it is He who is this Supernatural Power.

 

[SHW]

Really what evidence have you gathered from before the inflation of space time?

What evidence have you gathered to prove your personal belief for lack of supernatural cause and effect? Would you agree that humans are the most intelligent creatures? Can any human create a star (seed for evolution) or mustard seed (seed for human consumption) from nothing? Only a supernatural power has the ability to do this.

 

[SHW]

Dear me, are you suggesting we must believe everything that cant be proven wrong??

The burden of proof is no those that MAKE the claim.

If you claim that God does not exist, then the burden of proof is on you to prove your belief.

 

[SHW]

We can observe them in animals.

Morals in animals? Did you miss that particular science class? Animals have natural instincts, not morals. These natural instincts help to preserve the species. However, I do know of animal species that eat their young, cannibalize their own kind, and some kill their mates. Not very moral at all.