backtop

Print 218 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on May 14 at 11:34 AM

Early humans apparently couldn't resist the allure of Neanderthals, interbreeding and transfering DNA. Proof of this was delivered by the completion of the Neanderthal genome.   (Source: PATRICK BERNARD / AFP / Getty Images)

Neanderthals were driven to extinction by humans approximately 30,000 years ago.  (Source: MSNBC)
Some humans apparently thought Neanderthals were looking mighty fine

Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, were a species of prehistoric hominid that existed 30,000 to 400,000 years ago.  They were the closest relative to humans, but it is thought that humans drove them to extinction.  

Now led by ancient-DNA expert Svante Pääbo of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Neanderthal genome has been sequenced.  Roughly a decade after the first full sequencing of a human genome, the Neanderthal genome stands complete, with the full study appearing in the journal Science.

The DNA for the project came from bone fragments of three female Neanderthals excavated in the late 1970s and early 1980s from a cave in Croatia.  The ancient hominids lived approximately 38,000 to 40,000 years ago.

It is speculated that Homo sapiens (humans), which first evolved in the plains of Africa, may have interbred with Neanderthals as they spread out across the Middle East and North Africa.  The new DNA evidence indicates that this indeed occurred, but that it occurred far earlier than previously thought -- approximately 80,000 years ago.

Humans and Neanderthals diverged between 270,000 to 440,000 years ago, but thanks to interbreeding, some Neanderthal genetic traits survive to this day.  Additionally, Neanderthals and humans both appear to have evolved similar traits that accomplished the same goals, but were not genetically identical (the result of interbreeding).

The project is a very difficult one.  Over 97 percent of the sample DNA is bacterial and fungal DNA and must be painstakingly removed.  Meanwhile researchers must avoid contaminating the samples with their own DNA.  Researchers have been building a genome billions of base pairs long, using fragments 40 to 50 base pairs in length.  Describes Pääbo, "We used half a gram of bones to produce the 3 billion base pairs.  I really thought until six or seven years ago that it would remain impossible, at least for my lifetime, to sequence the entire genome."

Researchers found that sequenced human genomes from one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person shared 1 to 4 percent common genomic material with Neanderthals, the result of these people's ancient ancestors interbreeding with the close relative.  The genes appear to offer no benefit and be randomly placed.  Additionally the transfer appears one way, from Neanderthals to humans.

The new work is not without controversy.  The hard evidence it provides is discomforting for those whose religious doctrines claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.  Furthermore, it provides further evidence of how humans and other hominids evolved, a concept that is opposed by several religions.

Still, those more inclined to believe in science will certainly appreciate this magnificent study.  Computational biologist Webb Miller, part of a Penn State team, a member of the team that sequenced the Woolly Mammoth and "Otzi" iceman genome cheers, "This is a way cool paper. I think it's really fascinating. Some [scientists] will love it and some of them will hate it. It's great science."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Jyrioffinland on 5/7/2010 12:26:24 PM , Rating: 4
Science is aiming at the best possible explanation based on ample proof.

Religion (and ID) is just wishful thinking based on superstition.


By callmeroy on 5/7/2010 1:05:38 PM , Rating: 4
...until "new" science is discovered then everyone laughs at the "old" science much like they do a clown at a circus....

"You believed that.....ahahahahahaha"....


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 2:45:45 PM , Rating: 4
Odd, I don't believe I've ever met a physicist who laughed at those who, prior to Einstein, believed in Newtonian Mechanics.

Real science doesn't work the way you think it does.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 3:30:04 PM , Rating: 4
Real science? That sounds a lot like what you pooh-poohed about the 'real Christians' argument. What's with the double-standard?

You gave a loaded example. Newtonian Mechanics are not incorrect. They are a valid approximation of the macroscopic world, whereas quantum mechanics does not add significant contributions to such measurements.

How about the geocentric model of the universe that scientists accepted for almost 1,400 years? How about proteins and not DNA being important to heredity? Even now, they are finding that the "junk DNA" (as declared by scientists) might not be junk after all. How about anthropogenic global warming? And there are too many more examples to list, especially if one considers what's published in science journals. Depending on whom you ask, university professors generally say that 50-90% of what's published is garbage.

Real science doesn't work the way you think it does.


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 3:42:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:

You gave a loaded example. Newtonian Mechanics are not incorrect. They are a valid approximation of the macroscopic world, whereas quantum mechanics does not add significant contributions to such measurements.

How about the geocentric model of the universe that scientists accepted for almost 1,400 years? How about proteins and not DNA being important to heredity? Even now, they are finding that the "junk DNA" (as declared by scientists) might not be junk after all. How about anthropogenic global warming? And there are too many more examples to list, especially if one considers what's published in science journals. Depending on whom you ask, university professors generally say that 50-90% of what's published is garbage.


I agree with your point that his example was loaded and some theories are indeed derided by the more immature or arrogant members of the modern research community.

HOWEVER, if you're trying to equate junk DNA, early theories on genetics, or early astronomical views to the modern theory of evolution, you're sadly mistaken.

None of those theories had the vast amount of evidence from multiple disciplines (comparative anatomy, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, biochemistry, to list but a few) that the modern theory of evolution has. The chances of it being entirely wrong are astronomically low.

It may be tough to accept when common sense and a vast body of evidence contradicts your dogma, but you have to make the decision to embrace science or reject it altogether.

Various fundamentalist doctrines need to begrudgingly accept evolution and an old Earth, much as they conceded in the 1500s that the Earth indeed revolves around the sun (an example you point out).


By nstott on 5/7/2010 4:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
I never equated my examples to evolution. My examples were of scientific beliefs widely held that were wrong.

I believe that modern man came from evolution, but I also know enough about science to understand that a lot of the claims on specifics are likely to be complete bull$h!t. I think at best we can gain a general understanding of how it worked and perhaps deepen that understanding in the future. The specifics of what happened millions of years ago are not credible to me because there isn't any way to take into account everything that happened over that time period and what effects are had upon what we are looking at today.

As for my religion, a very prominent leader of my church from back in the 19th Century said that Adam was not a mud pie but was born the same way as you and I.

quote:
Various fundamentalist doctrines need to begrudgingly accept evolution and an old Earth, much as they conceded in the 1500s that the Earth indeed revolves around the sun (an example you point out).


The key word you use is "fundamentalist," and there are "fundamentalists" in science as well. Don't forget that it was Ptolemy that came up with the geocentric model, and it was also scientists who had to much later begrudgingly accept and concede that the heliocentric model was correct.


By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also know enough about science to understand that a lot of the claims on specifics are likely to be complete bull$h!t.

You claim to know something about science, but you don't demonstrate it. Odd...


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 10:10:34 PM , Rating: 4
"Don't forget that it was Ptolemy that came up with the geocentric model"

What you fail to understand is that, by the knowledge at the time, the geocentric model best fit the data. Consider all the data the ancient Greeks had:

a) We see the stars rotate around the earth.
b) We see the sun and move across the sky at regular intervals (in addition to the daily rotation)
c) We don't "feel" the earth move, except during rare occasions like earthquakes.

If that's the only data you have, the geocentric model is a better explanation than the heliocentric one.

However, as we learned more about the exact motions of those apparently-moving stars and planets, early astronomers had to invoke ever-more complex "epicycles" to explain those motions, and to solve thorny problems of what planetary brightness also varied. Eventually, the simplest explanation of all was to assume the earth itself was moving.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 10:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you fail to understand is that, by the knowledge at the time, the geocentric model best fit the data.


I don't fail to understand that, and you have no basis whatsoever to state such. I am a scientist.

You sound a lot like a religious fanatic defending the 6-day creation. If the following argument is false:

"Scientists and their interpretations of nature have been wrong ergo all science is wrong."

then this argument might also not be false:

"Religious people and their interpretations of scripture have been wrong ergo all religion is wrong."


By nstott on 5/10/2010 10:43:10 AM , Rating: 3
typo: *then this argument might also be false:*


By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 7:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with the theory of evolution as I see it is that it's greatest champions are also the most biased in it's favor

Overwhelming evidence and a lack of compelling and viable competing theories can indeed create a bias. I'm sure you're biased against having your arm broken. How irrational of you.


By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 11:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a lack of compelling and viable competing theories


There are countless legit scientific studies and theories that show the Bible can be and is in fact right. You can choose whether or not to count it as credible; this phenomenon is known as "opinion".


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 10:29:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think you've said yourself that you are an atheist, and when you take God out of the equation then evolution just makes sense, I agree.


Well, I guess your reading comprehension failed you because I never "said" that myself. You say that I am stereotyping, yet it is you in your rant in which you portray me as a "militant atheist" that are doing loads of stereotyping.

I certainly believe in God.

AND I consider myself a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST Christian. As John Lennon famously remarked, "Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

I think there are many legitimate faiths and paths through life and to God. I also feel that any religion that bills itself as the "only path" to god and preaches that all others will be damned is a danger to the world. That includes radical Muslims, like the 9/11 terrorists, and radical Christians, like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. People always make excuses for their fundamentalist religion's miscreant members after the fact, saying, "those people weren't really xxxx religion", but when you preach a philosophy of damnation and intolerance, that is what you get in the end.

Returning to the topic at hand, again I reassert -- there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that points to evolution as a proven theory, much like the theory of gravity. If you start a religion worshiping a giant flying spaghetti monster and start preaching gravity doesn't exist, that's fine and dandy, but an overwhelming body of evidence says you're wrong.

There's overwhelming geological, paleontological, chemical, and astrophysical evidence that indicates the Earth, and the universe that it resides in are far older than 10,000 years old. And there's overwhelming evidence that evolution gave rise to species and continues to this very day.

The fact that you fail to understand this fact tells me that either
A) The American educational system in all its glory failed you very badly or..
B) You're a member of a fundamentalist religion.

I hope for you that A) is the case... If not, my apologies to you and to those that have to deal with the hurt that fundamentalism causes to the world.

Look for God in numbers or the laws of physics, but don't abandon science for your unseen diety or the man you believe to be his messenger. And turn your back on fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or any other similar extremist message -- the world will be a better place for it.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 4:08:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I consider myself a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST Christian
+
quote:
but don't abandon science for your unseen diety or the man you believe to be his messenger
Slight contradiction there, heh?

Btw, can you explain exactly what "the modern theory of evolution" is?


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, are you one of those universalists who prays, "To whom it may concern... ?" :P Sorry, but I couldn't help myself. ;)


By wgbutler on 5/10/2010 4:27:48 PM , Rating: 3
Jason,

quote:

That includes radical Muslims, like the 9/11 terrorists, and radical Christians, like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber


I think you need to do a little more research. You are completely wrong when you try to disparage sincere Christians by linking them to Timothy McVeigh. Look him up on Wikipedia for Pete's sake!

---------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

"...McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[78][79] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "SCIENCE IS MY RELIGION"..."

---------------------------------

If anything, the evidence tells me that Timothy McVeigh has the same exact theological views that you have.

Should I start referencing the similarity that you have to Timothy McVeigh whenever I disagree with your viewpoints? You can see how asinine and self-serving that would be.

quote:

AND I consider myself a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST Christian. As John Lennon famously remarked, "Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

I think there are many legitimate faiths and paths through life and to God...


Then you really can't call yourself a Christian of any type. Jesus said in John 14:6 that:

"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

quote:

"those people weren't really xxxx religion", but when you preach a philosophy of damnation and intolerance, that is what you get in the end.


The only intolerant people I see in places like this are the secularists/atheists, taking their potshots at Christianity. What's with the weird obsession over what others believe? For example, I don't particularly agree with the Buddhist philosophy, but you don't see me regularly taking potshots at it on a blog. Nor do I lose any sleep over it or feel a need to link them to Timothy McVeigh...

quote:

There's overwhelming geological, paleontological, chemical, and astrophysical evidence that indicates the Earth, and the universe that it resides in are far older than 10,000 years old.


I agree!

quote:

And there's overwhelming evidence that evolution gave rise to species and continues to this very day.


Well it really depends on what you mean by "evolution". I agree that species adapt to their environment and go through minor changes over a period of time.

I don't agree with you that our great great great....grandfather is a bacteria that lived 600 million years ago, however, nor do I see any evidence that that is even possible. I think frankly that is quite an insane thing to believe in and greatly helps to demonstrate that rejecting God leads to irrational and insane ways of thinking!

quote:

The fact that you fail to understand this fact tells me that either
A) The American educational system in all its glory failed you very badly or..
B) You're a member of a fundamentalist religion.


Actually here in the states secularism and evolution are rammed down our throats. So in a weird kind of way I agree with you about our educational system being awful and leading to bad results.

quote:

And turn your back on fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or any other similar extremist message -- the world will be a better place for it.


What about extreme atheism? And who gets to define what "extreme" is anyway?

wgbutler


By Fritzr on 5/14/2010 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
When you say that the Christian creation myth is the right and true explanation. You are saying that the Buddhist creation myth, Hindu creation myth and the creation myths of all other non-Judaic religions are wrong. So you are among those taking potshots at religion even though your evidence of the Christian creation myth being the truth of the matter is bible study.

Before you jump on the use of the word myth. A myth is a religious story. Nothing more, nothing less. It may be completely factual or it may be completely false, but if it is a tale that tells a religious story it is a myth.

My personal problem with Christian Creation/Intelligent Design is that either one requires that an Intelligent Designer exist prior to it's own existence. The reasoning is as follows.

1) The universe and life are to complex to have arisen without assistance.
2) #1 implies that an Intelligent Designer or God created the universe and life
3) An Intelligent Designer or God capable of designing and creating the Universe and life is too complex to have arisen without assistance.
4) #3 implies that an Intelligent Designer or God capable of creating an Intelligent Designer or God capable of designing and creating the Universe and life is too complex to have arisen without assistance
5) An Intelligent Designer or God capable of creating an intelligent designer or God capable of designing the Universe and life is too complex to have arisen without assistance.
6) #5 implies that an Intellignet Designer or God capable of creating an Intelligent Designer or God capable of creating an Intelligent Designer or God capable of designing and creating the Universe and life is too complex to have arisen without assistance
7) ... I think you can figure out the next
To summarize: The universe is so complex that it requires a creator. Such a creator is so complex that it requires a creator to create it. Each creator thus requires the pre-existence of a creator.

Personally I think evolution by random events is more likely.

As to the literal truth of the bible. Just one minor item of many. Adam and Eve had 3 children to start with. All sons. One died, the other 2 went to neighboring kingdoms and returned with wives. After this Adam and Eve had additional children.

Since the Christian Bible can be used as an infallible source document. Who were the people who populated the neighboring kingdoms at a time when the population of Earth was 3 men & 1 woman? I have yet to find an answer to this that does not involve rewriting the Bible.


By Gladius777 on 5/9/2010 9:04:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem with the theory of evolution as I see it is that it's greatest champions are also the most biased in it's favor. I think you've said yourself that you are an atheist, and when you take God out of the equation then evolution just makes sense, I agree. The problem is that all these schools of science you mentioned alone still cannot demonstrate how one lifeform A gets to become lifeforms B C and D+ over millions of years.


I agree milkyway4me, not that the rabid evolutionists will care...I have read many quotes that show that a lot of "top" evolutionists like evolution due to its moral restraints (i.e. none) and "science" is their chosen vehicle to whitewash their guilt. Plenty of scientists over the ages have believed in creation and done wonderful science. The whole Copernicus argument revolves around the Catholic Church, which did not and does not represent all of Christianity (or perhaps any of it). Even the Hebrew Old Testament speaks of God drawing a sphere on/in the deep which has been rendered a circle in the KJV. But just as the evolutionists are wasting their breath trying to convince me that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit don't exist, I am probably wasting my breath (for the most part) on them. "Time will tell...sooner or later time will tell...."


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 4:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
"How about the geocentric model of the universe that scientists accepted for almost 1,400 years? How about proteins and not DNA being important to heredity? "

Again, I don't ever recall any modern-day scientist laughing at Ptolemy for his geocentric views, or anyone deriding Watson and Crick for their belief that DNA fully encapsulated heredity.

Thank you for making my point for me. When you believe in a theory that best fits the evidence at that time, you're engaging in science..and future practitioners are going to recognize that.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 5:21:48 PM , Rating: 1
I've laughed at Ptolemy and his ridiculous geocentric model many times, and I'm a scientist. SNAP! :P

I think you misunderstood me. The belief of most scientists, even after the discovery of DNA, was that it wasn't significant to heredity. They thought heredity was all about proteins.

Furthermore, I never said anything about laughing. That was the other guy.


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 7:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
Eh? You couldn't be more wrong. Researchers actually believed DNA was the primary mechanism of heredity before Watson and Crick discovered its shape. DNA was suggested as the primary mechanism in the early 1940s (look at Avery's work) and protein was ruled out entirely in the early 1950s. Read about it here:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Isolating...

"Furthermore, I never said anything about laughing"

Then you weren't rebutting my point. Are you even sure you know what it was? Try reading the thread again.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 11:00:40 AM , Rating: 1
Your reading comprehension is really lacking, Porkypooh. Please stick to what I actually write, not your incorrect interpretation. DNA was discovered in 1869. That's a lot of time before the 1940s. Here's a quote from The Science Channel web site:

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-...

quote:
DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.

Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.

It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.


I wasn't rebutting the point?

quote:
Then you weren't rebutting my point. Are you even sure you know what it was? Try reading the thread again.


I think your interpretation of the tread is too literal, like a fundamentalist's interpretation of the Bible, except, of course, when you divine things that I never wrote.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:05:01 PM , Rating: 3
"DNA was discovered in 1869."

We were talking about Watson and Crick, however. If you're going to move the goalposts back to the 19th century, then please name just one scientist who ridicules the researchers of 1869 for not instantly realizing DNA's role in heredity.

If you can't, please drop this ridiculous line of reasoning. I'll wait why you look.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We were talking about Watson and Crick, however.
Correction: You were talking about Watson and Crick. I never mentioned them, and I'm the one who brought this issue up.

quote:
If you're going to move the goalposts back to the 19th century...
I didn't move anything. If there were any goalposts, then it was implied from my original statement to be from 1869 until the 1940s. Why do you read things that aren't there?

quote:
...then please name just one scientist who ridicules the researchers of 1869 for not instantly realizing DNA's role in heredity.
Me. What dumb@$$es! :P

quote:
If you can't, please drop this ridiculous line of reasoning.
Ditto.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 1:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Me."

But you are, despite unconvincing blandishments to the contrary, not a scientist.

I ask again-- if you're going to continue this argument, name one scientist who ridicules 19th century researchers for not realizing the importance of DNA to heredity.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 2:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
Where and in what did you get your Ph.D., Porkypooh? How many articles have you published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals? How many patents have you filed and how much in royalties do you typically collect from said patents annually? Are you anything other than an old man with too much time on his hands?

quote:
I ask again-- if you're going to continue this argument, name one scientist who ridicules 19th century researchers for not realizing the importance of DNA to heredity.
Me, you humorless tool. Again, I never made the argument about laughing, and I took it in the figurative sense anyway.


By wiz220 on 5/7/2010 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 4
The geocentric view of the world was generally a religious one as opposed to a scientific one. It was ego that put us at the middle of the universe. Just look what the church did to Galileo when he proposed a REAL scientific theory. The church stated that heliocentrism was "false and contrary to Scripture". Galileo was one of the first western astronomers to actually practice observational astronomy (read: science). Before that, astronomers simply looked at the sky without actually applying scientific methods.


By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 7:32:50 PM , Rating: 4
Good point. Anti-scientists regularly seem to assume that scientists live in a magical bubble of protection, in which they're protected from anything that might hamper their attempts to glean understanding. Thus, if science is ever wrong, ALL OF SCIENCE IS WRONG, FOREVER AND ALWAYS!! YAARR!!


By nstott on 5/10/2010 11:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds a whole lot like the argument atheists use against religion.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 11:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
Your statements and understanding are incorrect and simplistic. Astronomers were making real measurements to back their theories. It just turned out that the geocentric theory was incorrect. Scientists, starting with Ptolemy, came up with it first, and then it was adopted by religion centuries later. If you want to blame any particular group, then blame the Greeks (whose philosophies had a lot of undue influence over early Christian thought and doctrine).

You also simplify the events that took place between Galileo and the Catholic Church. Galileo was actually commissioned by Pope Urban VIII to write his book to argue both models; however, Galileo offended Urban by unintentionally using Urban's own arguments for the geocentric model in the mouth of Simplicius. There were also some politics involved between the Pope and the Cardinals. There's a lot more to it than this summary that is worth reading up on. That all being said, we can agree that Urban was an @$$.

Your understanding of science, religion, and history are lacking to say the least.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Galileo was actually commissioned by Pope Urban VIII to write his book to argue both models; "

No. Urban gave Galileo permission to write about Heliocentrism, as long as he treated it as simply a hypothesis.

Furthermore, Galileo came into conflict with the Church long before Urban was even Pope. Galileo was denounced as early as 1615 (when Pope Paul V was in office), and the Inquisition formally ruled that geocentrism was correct, and instructed Galileo to abandon his Copernican heresies. The affair you allude to came a decade and a half later. Trying to cast this all as some personal spat between Galileo and Urban is the worst form of whitewashing historical revisionism.

"Galileo offended Urban by unintentionally using Urban's own arguments for the geocentric model in the mouth of Simplicius."

Once again, no. Galileo offended Urban by using the book to demolish the arguments of Simplicius on the omnipotence of God (arguments Urban himself strongly believed in and had personally expressed to Galileo personally).

Grow a backbone and face the facts. You have a brain -- I suggest you try using it.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 1:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. Urban gave Galileo permission to write about Heliocentrism, as long as he treated it as simply a hypothesis.
Porkiepooh, why are you arguing against arguments I don't make? You're trying too hard.

It was actually prior to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems that Galileo was given permission to hypothesize so long as he didn't make definitive statements.

quote:
Furthermore, Galileo came into conflict with the Church long before Urban was even Pope. Galileo was denounced as early as 1615 (when Pope Paul V was in office), and the Inquisition formally ruled that geocentrism was correct, and instructed Galileo to abandon his Copernican heresies. The affair you allude to came a decade and a half later. Trying to cast this all as some personal spat between Galileo and Urban is the worst form of whitewashing historical revisionism.
Adjust your meds, Porkiepooh. I know that Galileo came into conflict with the prior Pope. Despite your conspiracy claims of a grand whitewashing, I never said anything at all contrary to what you wrote. I said, "There's a lot more to it than this summary that is worth reading up on." You really seem like a wild-eyed religious zealot crusading for atheism. Quit tilting at windmills.

quote:
Once again, no. Galileo offended Urban by using the book to demolish the arguments of Simplicius on the omnipotence of God (arguments Urban himself strongly believed in and had personally expressed to Galileo personally).
Is that what your Daily Prayer Reader of Atheism tells you? Galileo was religious and believed in the omnipotence of God. What evidence do you have for your interpretation? Urban believed in the geocentric model, and it was not Galileo's intention to offend him.

quote:
Grow a backbone and face the facts.
I have no idea what you are talking about. How am I not showing backbone? What are you imagining in that strange mind of yours?

quote:
You have a brain -- I suggest you try using it.
Double-ditto to you.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2010 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 1
I think you are missing the OP's point.

quote:
The new work is not without controversy. The hard evidence it provides is discomforting for those whose religious doctrines claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Furthermore, it provides further evidence of how humans and other hominids evolved, a concept that is opposed by several religions.


This is what he's talking about. What does this paragraph add to the article? Does it enhance the information given? Does it increase the findings value? Is it even related to the finding in any way?

No. It's simply more of Mick's outright anti-religious trolling. It's purposely inflammatory ( and trust me, I'm an expert at writing inflammatory ) for no reason. And in typical trolling fashion, he purposely picks the most extreme example. Most religious people do NOT think the earth is only 10,000 years old. In fact, more religious people then you would imagine actually believe in evolution to one extent or the other.

But no, he purposely uses the most extreme Creationist hard line to outright polarize the reader. It changes the ENTIRE tone of the article. It goes from slightly informative and interesting to a BATTLEGROUND of wills and beliefs. Need proof? Read the comments here !! When you challenge peoples beliefs, you usually get a fight. And that is exactly what Jason is doing, challenging Christians and those who believe in God. But there's just no need for it here, and it ends up actually detracting from the article. Notice how most people aren't actually discussing the discovery, but just fighting about what side is "right" or whatever.

The OP is dead on. Mick has a history of slamming religious readers on Daily Tech, his blatant atheism bleeds through. Often poorly crafting articles that are NOT tech related and rushing them on with an inflammatory " HA HA See this you Christian idiots !!??? SCORE ANOTHER WIN FOR THE GOOD GUYS !!!" tone to them.


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 10:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that is exactly what Jason is doing, challenging Christians and those who believe in God. But there's just no need for it here, and it ends up actually detracting from the article. Notice how most people aren't actually discussing the discovery, but just fighting about what side is "right" or whatever.


No, the only people I'm "challenging" if anyone are FUNDAMENTALISTS. Believing in God is great, believing in Jesus is great, believing whatever religion you want is fine and dandy. Good for you, have a cookie.

What gives me and others who research or follow the scientific community a headache is fundamentalism in all its forms. It's fundamentalist, Christians, Muslims, etc. that have long fought science and continue to do so to this very day.

In the middle ages they condemned Copernicus and today they are trying to subvert the national education system, claiming ridiculous theories that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred is all magically false.

Your post is full of stereotyping and complaints. Listen up, it's good that the load of creationist rubbish is being challenged.

I'm no atheist, I'm just not a militant anti-science fundamentalist like you, and I can tell it really galls you.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2010 12:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm no atheist, I'm just not a militant anti-science fundamentalist like you, and I can tell it really galls you.


Last time you responded to me you accused me of being PRO-CHILD prostitution. Now I'm a "militant anti-science fundamentalist" ?? Truly your pathetic inability to take criticism knows no limits.

You utterly fail at any journalistic integrity, and with this post we now have proof. We want news and tech stories, not an agenda.

quote:
What gives me and others who research or follow the scientific community


Please. You recycle articles and other news articles that others work on, give them the Mick twist, and post them on Daily Tech. Your lack of integrity and impartiality, as well as poor story structure, is WELL documented here. Come down off that mountain Jason, you are NO researcher or scientist. You're nobody.

quote:
they are trying to subvert the national education system


Who's "they" ? We have an almost completely socialized education system. Totally federally funded and regulated. Very few schools are privately ran anymore. Creationist have about as much chance of "subverting" this as I do breaking into Fort Knox with a butter knife.

quote:
Listen up, it's good that the load of creationist rubbish is being challenged.


Listen up, this isn't the place for it. This is NOT a religious website. It's a tech website. Except you can't seem to go a month without posting some article with the express purpose of generating hits via religious debates. What this story is even doing on Daily Tech is beyond me. You don't even spend a paragraph on the technology and methods used to discover this amazing discovery.

And yes, I called it amazing because I think it is. I'm not a "fundamentalist" you fucking asshole, and you goddamn well know it. How DARE you slander a patron of this website like that. But because of your stupid attempts at "challenging" others, nobody is even TALKING about the discovery are they ???

Do us a favor and go make your OWN website, where people know what they are getting into. And stop turning Daily TECH into Jason Mick's personal crusade free-for-all.


By porkpie on 5/8/2010 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
"What this story is even doing on Daily Tech is beyond me."

Huh? It's a story about a key advance in the science of molecular evolution. Countless other science and tech sites have covered it.

I admit you have a valid beef about one single sentence near the end, that ties it into religion...but the resultant debates are so much fun, that I can't really get too righteously indignant about it. I think if you'd be honest with yourself, you'd say the same thing.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2010 4:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
No NO, I don't mean the story. I just meant Jason's delivery method OF the story.

I think the discovery is fascinating. I just would have liked to, you know, LEARN about it. The details, the methods of testing, etc etc.

Instead it's a thinly veiled "screw you religion" piece by Mick, one of many, and it's purposely inflammatory.

Hell you read his reply to me. Apparently a few wackos are going to take over science as we know it, and it's HIS job to save it. LOL. There are probably more Scientology members, who believe we're possessed by space Aliens, than there are actual Foundaationist's out there. But for some reason he doesn't seem too threatened by them.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 4:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your post is full of stereotyping and complaints. Listen up, it's good that the load of creationist rubbish is being challenged.
Talk about stereotyping!

You want to challenge creationism or Intelligent Design, go right ahead. That practically puts you in the boat with Comedy Central. South Park bowing to Muslim demands self-censored their anti-Muhammad episode. However, they are cleverly going to get back at them ... how? yep, by running a series of anti-Christian episodes.

Does that make sense to you?


By ThatAVKguy on 5/7/2010 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 1
Lets see..We have scientists who look at evidence and facts to come up with theories that fit. Yes they are not accurate sometimes, but eventually we learn to fly through persistence and new ideas. We knew it was possible, just how. Religion uses ancient text to "prove" itself. Where that falls short "faith" is required. Science is NOT faith. If you can't prove it, it's speculation, not truth. Religion claims "truth" without fact, backed up by 3,000 year old writings by near Neanderthals (education wise) decades after ANY story happened. How true could it possibly be? That's faith...You are welcome to your beliefs, just remember that is all they are. They are not fact. Until you PROVE them, (and the world has one true religion) many will refuse to allow you to run our lives with your "truth". My friend Harvey the Pooka has as much evidence of existence as your god. I believe! disprove his existence. You cant! Science has MUCH higher qualifications of truth. At least we can build an airplane due to science. Religion gives us war, intolerance, suicide bombers, and raping priests.


By milkyway4me on 5/7/2010 1:08:57 PM , Rating: 1
You act like religion and science are mutually exclusive. You also act like science hasn't ever killed anyone, but your friendly evolutionists the Nazi's and you'll quickly learn what kind of evil can result from believing that one race (blacks) and people (jews) are subhumans because of of their "science".


By drando on 5/7/2010 5:54:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You act like religion and science are mutually exclusive.


Religion and science aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but they aren't exactly compatible when talking about the three major desert religions. Perhaps other religions are more compatible with science but I don't know enough about them to comment. I do know many people who are religious but understand that evolution is a fact.

To quote the brilliant entertainer Tim Minchin, "Science adjusts its views based on whats observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." If you show us that your religion is true then we'll (people who prefer reality, and thus science) believe it. But until then you're baseless claims no different than the baseless claims of an insane person in an asylum, locked up for the "good of society."

quote:
You also act like science hasn't ever killed anyone, but your friendly evolutionists the Nazi's and you'll quickly learn what kind of evil can result from believing that one race (blacks) and people (jews) are subhumans because of of their "science".


It sounds like someone's been watching the worst movie of all time, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," and taking it's unfounded claims as gospel. That Nazi line is right out of Ben Stein's ignorant mouth. Well, to educate you, even though you'll probably stick your head in the sand, Hitler was a christian. He claimed that he was doing God's work by eradicating the Jews. But don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. Try a simple Google search like "nazi christian." But why make the effort to look up anything when you can rely on someone to tell you a lie that you want to believe? That way you don't have to actually think for yourself.


By LRonaldHubbs on 5/7/2010 10:12:29 PM , Rating: 3
By this standard anyone who does anything horrible can simply be brushed aside as not Christian. By extension it could then be argued that nobody who has ever done anything horrible was a Christian. That's BS.

A personal belief is just that. Nobody but the person who holds the belief can say what that belief is. You can't say in retrospect that because of Hitler's actions he was not a Christian. If he truly believed himself to be a Christian then that's what he was.

Now, if you want to argue that he was a bad Christian then I will agree. But there is a big difference between saying someone is a bad Christian vs saying they are not a Christian.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2010 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nobody but the person who holds the belief can say what that belief is.


Ok then I'm an atheist but I believe in God. How's that make sense again ?? Sorry but beliefs DO have certain core attributes, and Hitler falls terribly short of what a Christian strives for.

quote:
By this standard anyone who does anything horrible can simply be brushed aside as not Christian.


Do you realize the man killed SIX MILLION people simply because of the color of their skin and their genetics? He attempted to wipe an ENTIRE race off the face of the earth!!! How can this be summed up as just "bad" or "horrible". We're not talking about some guy who killed someone in the heat of passion and is now trying to repent for it. Can you understand the difference here ?

Christianity is a way of life, not a label. Hitler did NOT live that life, he did not even attempt to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ or the Bible. And if he was ever repentant about the horrible things he did, he sure as hell didn't document them or speak to others about them.

Hitler was a complete psychopath and it's honestly offensive how you have become so hateful to Christians that you lump him in with them.

quote:
If he truly believed himself to be a Christian then that's what he was.


Justification that only a child would come up with. I believe I'm a five legged flying toad, so what?


By porkpie on 5/8/2010 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
" Hitler falls terribly short of what a Christian strives for."

Isn't it a "core belief" of Christianity that everyone falls short of that striving to achieve those ideal goals?

"Do you realize the man killed SIX MILLION people "

What exactly is the cutoff point at which you believe a person can no longer be considered a Christian, even a bad one? Can someone who killed 100 people qualify? Ten? What about just one person in a fit of rage?

You are redefining terms to fit your world view. A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Period. You may judge some believers good or bad, and many of them would judge you as harshly as you judge them. What makes your viewpoint right,and theirs wrong?


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2010 4:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
oh Porkie.. you too ??

quote:
Isn't it a "core belief" of Christianity that everyone falls short of that striving to achieve those ideal goals?


So good little Hitler was "striving" and, along the way, he hit a few small bumps in the road. Is that it ? Sorry Jesus, I tried to follow your teachings, but all those damn Jews have to go !!

Also before we go further I would like to say that I have been researching weather or not Hitler even WAS a self confessed "Christian", and I believe it was a mistake accepting the other posters premise. There is no concrete answer on the subject. And while he referenced God in many of his speakings, most historians believe it was simply for effect.

quote:
What exactly is the cutoff point at which you believe a person can no longer be considered a Christian, even a bad one?


I don't know, and neither do you. But I'm PRETTY sure that if there was a line, GENOCIDE would be crossing it, don't you??

quote:
You are redefining terms to fit your world view. A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Period.


lmao Porkie. You're right, I must be the ONLY ONE saying this !!?? Do yourself a favor and Google "what is a Christian". There are MANY world views on it, and many many views mirror my own. I mean, you're joking right? I'm some kind of freak who just defined my own definition of "Christian" ?? Isn't it more likely I developed this opinion from some 30 odd years of observation, friendships and family ties, reading etc etc ?? Nah, I must be a SCUMBAG to not think Hitler was a Christian...

quote:
A Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ. Period.


Most definitions fit this, but you left out something. Belief in Christ AND follows his teachings. For example : http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/christ...

Now one thing that you cannot argue is that Hitler, without a doubt, did NOT follow the teachings of Christ. I confess to having never read the Bible in it's entirety, but I'm fully aware that Hitler's life ambitions and decisions fell terribly short of that goal. Again, he wasn't some guy who had to kill in self defense. Or who succumbed to a momentary desire or passion. The man was, in layman's terms, evil. And it seems odd to me that you and others here seek to diminish the purely evil and despicable things he did to make your anti-religious point.

Porkie, you are one of the smartest guys here in my opinion. You are better than this. He might have believed in god. He might have actually believed, in some twisted way, that God was in his side. But where was Hitler's compassion, good stewardship, caring, self sacrifice, humility etc etc. These are what Christians, in your own word, strive for. It is not enough to simply say you believe in something, ANYONE can do that. You have to walk the path, and live the life.

Again, to recycle my own analogy, I can call myself a Vegan. I can even BELIEVE that I am one. But if I eat steak with french fries a few times a week or hamburgers, I'm NOT one.


By porkpie on 5/8/2010 6:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
"I confess to having never read the Bible in it's entirety,"

You believe in a book you've never read? And you don't find it odd I know more about your religion than you do?

"So good little Hitler was "striving" and, along the way, he hit a few small bumps in the road. Is that it ? Sorry Jesus, I tried to follow your teachings, but all those damn Jews have to go !!"

You forget that, for nearly 2000 years before Hitler, millions of Christians had been persecuting and even killing Jews on the grounds that "they deserved it" for killing Christ.

Still, if you don't want to accept Hitler, what about Torquemada, or any of the other countless Christian fanatics who spent their lives torturing and murdering in the name of God. Was Torquemada a Christian or not?

" I'm PRETTY sure that if there was a line, GENOCIDE would be crossing it, don't you??"

I'm somewhat familiar with your bible, and I do recall that, according to orthodox dotrine, there is no line that you can cross.

" you left out something. Belief in Christ AND follows his teachings."

Sorry; this doesn't wash:

a) There is no consensus on what exactly those "teachings state". Many have concluded it includes the persecution and death of disbelievers. Why are you right and they wrong?

b) There is not only no requirement for how closely you follow those "teachings" ... but your bible specifically states it's impossible to follow them exactly, and that you will not be penalized for failing to do so.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2010 11:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You believe in a book you've never read? And you don't find it odd I know more about your religion than you do?


WOW ! How many times do I have to say on Daily Tech that I am NOT A CHRISTIAN OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY RELIGION !!! Just because I can play devils advocate, or defend the views of other posters, or can see Mick's obvious athiest-trolling, does not mean I am one.

quote:
I'm somewhat familiar with your bible, and I do recall that, according to orthodox dotrine, there is no line that you can cross.


Sure if you are repentant. Hitler clearly wasn't, and it doesn't matter if he was. He killed himself anyway, which according to almost every branch of Christianity I'm aware of, is considered the ultimate sin guaranteeing residence in Hell.

quote:
Still, if you don't want to accept Hitler, what about Torquemada, or any of the other countless Christian fanatics who spent their lives torturing and murdering in the name of God. Was Torquemada a Christian or not?


The Christian Jesus/God is NOT the prophet Muhammad. He doesn't require, want, or reward people who kill in his name. I think that's pretty clear. In fact, killing is so important it's one of those 10 Commandment deals. You know, the whole DON'T KILL rule??

quote:
a) There is no consensus on what exactly those "teachings state".


LOL Ok I see. So until a panel concludes EXACTLY what every teaching states, we should continue to throw millions in giant ovens and live hate-filled lives. Gotcha.. good reasoning.

quote:
Many have concluded it includes the persecution and death of disbelievers.


Oh please. Humans have a gift for interpretation that knows no bounds. Many people also believe "Catcher in the Rye" is a blueprint for becoming an assassin or serial killer. Good luck finding a majority that actually believes Jesus advocated the killing of disbeleavers. Again, are you confusing Jesus with Muhammad ???

quote:
b) There is not only no requirement for how closely you follow those "teachings" ... but your bible specifically states it's impossible to follow them exactly, and that you will not be penalized for failing to do so.


*groans*

Again, you keep approaching this like we're talking about an engine diagram !!! Like this is some kind of quantifiable thing we can quantify exactly. It's spiritual. The JOURNEY is important. The striving to follow the teachings, to live the life. It's important. But where was Hitlers journey? Where was his struggle to better himself and walk the path? HE NEVER TRIED !!

And stop calling it "your" Bible please. It's not my Bible! Is that why you are arguing with me like I see you bashing the Christians in the other thread ? Because you think I am one too ?? I don't have to be a Christian to recognize that Hitler is about the furthest example of one you could think to find.


By porkpie on 5/9/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
"He killed himself anyway, which according to almost every branch of Christianity I'm aware of, is considered the ultimate sin guaranteeing residence in Hell."

Oops, wrong again. Even among Catholics (who for centuries considered it so), it hasn't been a guaranteed ticket to purgatory since the 1997 Catechism. Many of the Protestant branches never considered it so.

"The Christian Jesus/God is NOT the prophet Muhammad. In fact, killing is so important it's one of those 10 Commandment deals. You know, the whole DON'T KILL rule??"

Again, you display a serious lapse in understanding these religions. You don't realize that according to Islam, Jesus and his revelations are considered holy. He bears the same relationship to Islam as does Moses or Abraham does to Christianity.

Furthermore, the "thou shall not kill" commandment has been interpreted to allow killing by Christians essentially forever. How many Christians today are in favor of the death penalty? In any case, the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Testament and thus, in the eyes of many Christians, null and void on doctrinal grounds.

" So until a panel concludes EXACTLY what every teaching states, we should continue to throw millions in giant ovens and live hate-filled lives. Gotcha.."

No, rather as long as large numbers of Christians -- even today -- interpret their faith as allowing them to kill others, you cannot say that "people who kill" are not Christians.

As for Hitler, you seem to believe he carried out the Holocaust single-handedly. The fact is he was aided by hundreds of thousands of others, all of whom believed as he did.

You refuse to face facts. If Hitler believed in Christ, he's a Christian...far more of one than a long-life Buddhist or Hindu.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 7:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
according to Islam, Jesus and his revelations are considered holy
No, according to Islam, Jesus was a prophet. He was not the Son of God [which makes Jesus to be a liar, according to Islam]. He is succeeded by Muhammed, who, based on his latter day revelation is considered more relevant.

If Jesus bore the same relationship as Moses does to Christianity, then where in the Bible do you see Jesus calling for somebody's head to be cut off?

"Thou shalt not kill" is better rendered "thou shall not murder". Killing is seen as necessary at times since wars are a part of human history. It is a matter of justice.

Again, as for Hitler, Matt 7:16. You can call yourself whatever you like, but the proof is in the pudding. If you like, you can call yourself the Son of God, but I would NOT recommend Roman crucifixion [because, among other things, you're being raised on the 3rd day is rather far from guaranteed, which I think you'll agree].

In fact, the more I read what you wrote, even demons believe in Christ's existence and the reality of who He is. Of course, demons don't place their faith in him. Kind of dumb if you ask me, but that's their problem.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 3:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
Since you're asking about recognition, try Matt 7:16. I'll make it easy for you

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthe...


By LRonaldHubbs on 5/8/2010 6:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you realize the man killed SIX MILLION people simply because of the color of their skin and their genetics? He attempted to wipe an ENTIRE race off the face of the earth!!! How can this be summed up as just "bad" or "horrible". We're not talking about some guy who killed someone in the heat of passion and is now trying to repent for it. Can you understand the difference here ?

Yes, I do understand the difference. It is a matter of severity.

quote:
Christianity is a way of life, not a label. Hitler did NOT live that life, he did not even attempt to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ or the Bible. And if he was ever repentant about the horrible things he did, he sure as hell didn't document them or speak to others about them.

Like I said, he was a bad Christian. But that doesn't mean that he was not a Christian at all. If he believed in the divinity of Christ then he was a Christian.

quote:
Hitler was a complete psychopath and it's honestly offensive how you have become so hateful to Christians that you lump him in with them.

I don't hate Christians. In fact there are very few people whom I truly do hate. And I have family members who are Christian. I definitely don't hate them. I am simply refusing to accept your conveniently personalized definition for the word 'Christian.'

quote:
Justification that only a child would come up with. I believe I'm a five legged flying toad, so what?

And that's an analogy that only a child would come up with, because honestly, it's a very dumb analogy. A personal belief about something unprovable is entirely different from an belief in something which is easily [dis]provable. You very clearly are not a five-legged flying toad, and it can be easily proven that you are not. That is not the same type of belief as Christianity.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2010 11:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he believed in the divinity of Christ then he was a Christian.


You cannot believe in the divinity of Christ, and do the things Hitler did and live the life he had. It's that simple. All your other attempts at points are invalidated by this simple fact.

quote:
And I have family members who are Christian.


Have you told them that you think Hitler was a Christian too? I wonder what they would say...

quote:
I am simply refusing to accept your conveniently personalized definition for the word 'Christian.'


Hell don't take it from me. Here are easily obtainable quotes of Hitler himself talking about his Christianity.

Hitler:
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion.Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Man, what a devout Christian !!

Hitler:
“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science… All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic

Yup because real Christians go around calling their beliefs "dogma"...


By porkpie on 5/9/2010 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Hell don't take it from me. Here are easily obtainable quotes of Hitler himself talking about his Christianity. "

Thanks for agreeing.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2010 12:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously?? You have no legitimate comment about proof that Hitler denounced the faith you so adamantly claim he had? But instead bust out an immature play on words "you agree" comeback?

I don't know why, but I expected better from you. Face facts, Hitlers "Christianity" was carefully planed propaganda to whip the German people into a frenzy. In private, he made his true colors clear.

You have two options at this point. You can accuse me of making quotes up, or you can admit you are wrong.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 10:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
"You have two options at this point. You can accuse me of making quotes up, or you can admit you are wrong."

Poor Reclaimer; you're about to burst a blood vessel, yet you don't realize you've already lost the argument. You've gone from arguing Hitler couldn't be a Christian because he killed Jews, to he couldn't be one because of statements he made about his beliefs. That was my original point! That belief determines faith, not actions.

Furthermore, before you get too excited about a couple quotes you found on the Internet (one of which's authenticity is very suspect indeed, despite its prevalence), you have to realize Hitler also made other statements in which he confirmed a belief in Christianity.

The simple fact of the matter is that determining what a person believes from what they SAY they believe is, on a subject like religion, difficult in the best of cases. In Hitler's case, he made so many contradictory statements, that's its essentially impossible. We'll never know exactly what Hitler believed deep inside, and how often he may have changed his mind. But what it an incontrovertible fact -- and one you've finally admitted -- is that belief determines faith, not actions.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they separately killed many more people than Hitler. They promoted atheism and targeted the religious for extermination. What does this say about atheism?


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they separately killed many more people than Hitler. What does this say about atheism?"

Stalin and Mao both ate beef, and they killed tens of millions of people between them. What does this say about those who eat beef?

See the fallacy in your argument? Neither Stalin nor Mao used atheism to justify their actions. The persecution of Jews in Germany, however, had a deep-rooted history based in Christian tradition.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Stalin and Mao both ate beef, and they killed tens of millions of people between them. What does this say about those who eat beef?
Absolutely nothing.

quote:
See the fallacy in your argument?
Of course I do since I set it up that way. Do you see the fallacy of your tired, worn out argument that you make every time? I'm presenting a fallacial argument equal to yours, and my question should have clued you into the purpose in my asking.

quote:
Neither Stalin nor Mao used atheism to justify their actions.
On this you are incorrect. They did invoke atheism, and atheism is an integral part of communism. They intentionally targeted the religious for extermination and promoted atheism over religion. Grow a backbone and quit whitewashing history, as you are wont to say.

quote:
The persecution of Jews in Germany, however, had a deep-rooted history based in Christian tradition.
Complete bull$h!t. The central tenant of any true Christian tradition is that the Messiah, or Christ, is a Jewish man. Jews were persecuted in many countries, including Russia, because they were ethnically different. Ethnic clashes and persecution is well-known in Europe from the distant past up to this day.

Even Saddam Hussein invoked religion when he thought it would help to rally religious Muslims to his cause, but we know that he was a secularist. Hitler invoked religion as justification in much the same way, but he was not a religious man.

You have a kindergarten-level understanding of history and the world that isn't much different from religious fundamentalists.


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 3:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Stalin and Mao...intentionally targeted the religious for extermination"

Oh really? Odd that much of my family grew up (religious I might add) in Soviet Russia and they never noticed the religious being herded into railcars for execution. Anyone who challenged the political authority of the state now, that's a rather different story.

"Complete bull$h!t. The central tenant of any true Christian tradition is that the Messiah, or Christ, is a Jewish man."

Good lord, do you really now so little history? Do you not know that Jews, for centuries in Europe were continually accused of practicing "anti-Christian rituals"? Imprisoned and executed for the same? That they were barred from many callings as late as even the 19th century?

Here's what Pope Clement VIII said about the Jews (and remember that the Catholic Church was generally easier on Jews than the Reformist Calvinists and Lutherans)

quote:
All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live."

Here's what Martin Luther said of Jews:
quote:
"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves...Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people.. eject them forever from this country, they are nothing but thieves and robbers...I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."


By ekv on 5/10/2010 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
belief determines faith, not actions.
Recall that even demons believe in the reality of Jesus Christ and who He is, as I've mentioned before. Did you not understand? or perhaps you'd rather not apply it?

Now does a demon then have faith? yes, surely, but not in Jesus Christ. Is a demon a Christian? no. Emphatically not. We have been given means of determining who is a sheep and who is a sheep in wolves clothing.
quote:
We'll never know exactly what Hitler believed deep inside
Ok, so which belief are you claiming determines faith? is it the belief Hitler had in Christianity on the surface? or the belief he had deep inside? Or, as I suspect, is it the belief you want to claim which will allow you to wiggle out of this discussion.

You strike me as a smart guy. No nonsense. You draw a hard line, rationally, in so many topics, that for you to straddle here is uncharacteristic. Why the problem? Perhaps a religious huckster in the past tried to pull the wool over your eyes? Or perhaps evolutionary science is just so strong it can't possibly be overcome by this "feeble" Jesus?


By porkpie on 5/10/2010 4:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Recall that even demons believe in the reality of Jesus Christ "

Perhaps you could support your argument without invoking mythological beings? A person is a Christian not if they simply believe Christ existed, but if they believe in his teachings. Did Hitler? He made pronouncements strongly affirming Christianity, and others which appeared to condemn it. On that basis, it's impossible to determine his faith...but the idea that, because he killed Jews, he "can't be a Christian", is utterly fallacious.

" Or perhaps evolutionary science is just so strong it can't possibly be overcome by this "feeble" Jesus?"

Why not read "On the Origin of the Species" and judge for yourself? I've read both it and your bible...can you say the same?

Or look at the recent work by molecular biologists, who are actually able to see evolution in progress, and calculate exactly how fast its occurring.


By ekv on 5/10/2010 6:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps you could support your argument without invoking mythological beings?
Look out your window. Do you see the wind? no. But you can see the effects of the wind, as the tree branches sway. Just because I can't see it, does that mean the wind is mythological?

quote:
...they believe in his teachings
No. Even the demons believe Christ teaches the truth. A person is a Christian if they believe in HIM ... and they act and obey His teachings. Jesus Christ was not merely some moral do-gooder. He said He was the Son of God. Unequivocally. Either He was completely mad and has led billions of persons astray, or He was who He said He was. There is no middle ground.

I have read the Bible though only skim-read "On the Origin of the Species". I ought to read both more thoroughly, but to be honest, I have a hard enough time with the Bible to be worried about something that is not proven.

Have you read "Evolution's Fatal Fruit" by Tom DeRosa? The subtitle is 'How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions'. Quick read. Focused. Documented.

I'll work on the molecular biology stuff. [Likely my worst subject, but I'll work on it. I may have to call on my sister's daughter -- IQ 210, pre-med, Christian].


By drando on 5/8/2010 9:41:04 PM , Rating: 1
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."


By wgbutler on 5/10/2010 6:48:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

Hitler was a christian. He claimed that he was doing God's work by eradicating the Jews.


The ignorance on this forum is absolutely appalling. It is true that Hitler professed to be a Christian when he was running for office as a politician. But later on after he acquired power he let his true feelings be known about Christianity.

See below:

------------------------------------------
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitle...

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....

"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....

"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....

"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....

"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....

"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
------------------------------------------

Honestly it seems to me like it is the atheists who make the nasty comments about Christianity who are like Hitler. They share the same views as Hitler did about Christianity. Yet ironically, they accuse the Christians of being like Hitler!

wgbutler


By wiz220 on 5/7/2010 6:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
This is a blatant straw man argument, the Nazi's were not evolutionists. The Nazi's practiced eugenics which is actually the opposite of evolution. Also, if evolution and Darwinian theory were so important to the Nazi cause why didn't Hitler mention Darwin ONCE in Mein Kampf? Furthermore it's well known that the Nazi's actually USED RELIGION to justify what they were doing. The Catholic church had long spoken out against the Jews, when Hitler came to power the populace was already primed for his anti-semitic rhetoric. Hitler was a devout Catholic by the way.


By Harinezumi on 5/8/2010 3:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
Tell that to Torquemada.


By porkpie on 5/8/2010 3:59:00 AM , Rating: 2
Or Rodrigo Borgia.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2010 11:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Again, you don't understand. Being a Christian is more than a label you put on yourself. You are defined by your ACTIONS, not your words. Hitler did NOT live the life of a Christian. He wasn't just some guy who did "bad things". At every opportunity he chose, willingly and knowingly, the wrong path. He did not seek to better himself spiritually as a person.

And he eventually chose suicide. Which, as anyone debating religion should know, is the ultimate sin and one way ticket to hell, according to scripture.

I think it's just so absurd we're even having this debate. Good grief ! HITLER !? Really!??


By porkpie on 5/8/2010 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Hitler did NOT live the life of a Christian. "

In your opinion. His was different. Torquemada would have judged himself a saint according to scripture, and judged you a heathen sinner destined for eternal damnation. During the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the children singing psalms while dragging headless corpses through the street though themselves the pinnacle of the Christian faith.

That's the essential problem with religion. Since it's based on faith and some absurdly vague, elastic, and contradictory writings, people can define it however they want, and attempt to exclude anyone who disagrees with them on doctrinal grounds.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 3:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre .... Hadn't seen that one before. "Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed people", i.e. fell upon those of reformed faith. Excellent example. Thanks.

The Reformation essentially began in Germany, October 31, 1517 by Martin Luther. Fascinating history. Protestantism began and the Catholic church recognized a threat to its dominion. Luther's 95 theses were intended for reform, the Catholic church took it as an attack upon their very existence.

I have many problems with religion, since there are essential problems with religion. However, I personally don't worry about it that much. I'm more concerned about that guy, Jesus Christ. He took a fair amount of abuse, didn't speak out and was crucified. I'm concerned about Him because of the things he did AND the fact that they couldn't kill Him (and not for lack of trying).

Other religions I can't talk too well about, but as far as the Bible is concerned ... good luck trying to prove it is "absurdly vague, elastic, and contradictory". Seriously, I wish you the best there my friend. [Nearly 2000 years and counting...]


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7:16-20) Christ defines the way to discern based on what the professed believer does. Given that He is the leader, I think it is up to Him to determine membership.

You can claim to be a member of MENSA all you want, Porkypooh, but it doesn't make it so.


By ekv on 5/10/2010 12:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can claim to be a member of MENSA all you want, Porkypooh, but it doesn't make it so.
It strikes me that a personal (ad hominem) attack is not necessarily going to be the best witness here. Which is what you're supposed to be doing, right?

I suspect he is closer to MENSA than you or I. If you're going to argue your case then be prepared to bring your "A" game. Demonstrate your perspective ... positive attitude, have fun, etc.


By drycrust3 on 5/7/2010 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Science is NOT faith. If you can't prove it, it's speculation, not truth.


Good. Prove you believe that!

As I've said before, either Evolution has an exemption to being critiqued or it doesn't. If it does, just say so; if it doesn't, then do your job and critique it. Even I, as a Creationist, could pick holes in this, and that's without doing any research. If Neanderthals and humans were breeding, then, by the standard you just set, they ARE the same species, which means that "Neanderthals" are just a different race or breed or whatever you like to call it.

Sadly, the plain and simple fact is "science" isn't going to go and re-write all those text books just because by using your standard I've just thrown 50 years of speculation into the rubbish bin.

As I've said before, there are about a million people on this planet who should be critiquing this stuff and don't. If they don't, then don't complain because someone who doesn't know as much as a so called expert does the job for them.


By Mojo the Monkey on 5/7/2010 2:13:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If Neanderthals and humans were breeding, then, by the standard you just set, they ARE the same species, which means that "Neanderthals" are just a different race or breed or whatever you like to call it.


Hmm... someone doesnt know much about the world. Ever hear about what happens when a donkey fucks a horse? Seriously, go look up mule. These are different animal species. You just sound stupid.


By nafhan on 5/7/2010 2:32:38 PM , Rating: 3
Uhm, you end up with a sterile hybrid (i.e. mule)?


By Mojo the Monkey on 5/7/2010 2:38:02 PM , Rating: 1
Right - but the passing on of genetic material resulted in the birth of a future generation. In this case with the mule, just one. But it proves this guy's logic incorrect, that only same-species animals are capable of mating to produce offspring.


By drycrust3 on 5/7/2010 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but thanks to interbreeding, some Neanderthal genetic traits survive to this day

quote:
the transfer appears one way, from Neanderthals to humans


As Nathan so kindly pointed out, horse + donkey = sterile animal. Since this article claims genes from the Neanderthal have been passed on to humans, then obviously Neanderthal + human = fertile animal (for want of a better word).
Does that mean Neanderthal and Humans are the same species? Logically they are.


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 2:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
"If Neanderthals and humans were breeding, then, by the standard you just set, they ARE the same species"

This "standard" is incorrect. Many different species can and do interbreed. For just one example, consider canis familiaris (the common dog), which can interbreed with canis lupus (wolves), canis latrans (coyotes) and others.

By modern definition, a 'species' is simply a morphologically distinct form.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Canis lupus familiaris is the domesticated dog, and "familiaris" is the subspecies, and from there we have different breeds. Domesticated dogs and wolves are the same species. Coyotes are considered a different species, but classifications can and do change.


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 3:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
Again, while you are technically correct on a handful of points, overall you are still quite misinformed.

Distinct species CAN interbreed in many cases.

A fine example is the Lonicera fly, created by the interbreeding of R. mendax, the blueberry maggot, and R. zephyria, the snowberry maggot.

Another example of a higher vertebrate cross that is fertile is the wholphin -- a rare mix of the false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin. You'll have a hard time claiming those two marine mammals are even remotely close to being the same species, yet they can produce fertile offspring.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 4:33:05 PM , Rating: 3
Overall, you are the one who is quite misinformed. Where did I say that distinct species cannot interbreed? All I did was write that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species in correction of misinformation. Furthermore, these are classifications, and these classifications can and do change.

Scientists argue about the rules, and I would be in favor of defining the ability to breed fertile offspring as being the same species and any additional distinctions being used to classify as subspecies and breeds.

If it is hard to claim that a false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin are not remotely close to the same species, then please back up your claims as to what the drastic differences are that make them not even remotely close to each other. Are they more different than a Chihuahua and a Great Dane? If so, how?


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 10:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Overall, you are the one who is quite misinformed. Where did I say that distinct species cannot interbreed?


My apologies if you didn't mean that. That was what the original op stated and you seemed to be defending them in your comments.

As to this:
quote:
Scientists argue about the rules, and I would be in favor of defining the ability to breed fertile offspring as being the same species and any additional distinctions being used to classify as subspecies and breeds.


It's a fine idea and one that has been proposed by biologists for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, your proposal requires trying to get animals to mate with each other and breed.

How are you going to take every species and try to breed it with every other similar species, exactly? Without that info, your approach will never provide a comprehensive. And given the issues with captive breeding, the feasibility of such a practice seems very unlikely.

As to the bottlenose and false killer whale, they are very taxonomically different. Here's some pics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_killer_whale

As to how genetically different they are, we will soon be able to explicitly determine that. The bottlenose dolphin has been sequenced:
http://www.hgsc.bcm.tmc.edu/project-species-m-Dolp...

And I'd wager a guess that the false killer whale's genome will be sequenced within a decade.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
You don't make every animal breed and then see if it produces fertile offspring. You adjust the naming system whenever that occurs.

I agree with Porkpie that the system is being manipulated to promote an environmentalist agenda.

BTW, your picture evidence of taxonomical difference didn't convince me of anything other than the opposite of what you are arguing. There are more similarities between the false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin than there are between many breeds of canines. Given that the genetic evidence isn't complete for the false killer whale, I'm not sure why you previously claimed significant genetic differences.


By drycrust3 on 5/8/2010 2:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Distinct species CAN interbreed in many cases.


Ok, so they can, but surely those that normally do is more important? But since we are, for the purpose of this exercise, talking about those that can produce fertile offspring (since genetic information was passed on) what percentage are we talking about? 1%? 5%? 10%?
If we said it was 10% (although I reckon it's way less than 1%), then surely that means there is a 90% chance that Neanderthals are the same species as humans! As such, surely the onus is upon yea believers that Neanderthals are a different species from us to actually front up with the evidence that they are a distinctly different species from humans and not just another race of humans.
quote:
Canis lupus familiaris is the domesticated dog, and "familiaris" is the subspecies, and from there we have different breeds. Domesticated dogs and wolves are the same species.

Since the argument here is whether Neanderthals are of the same or a "distinctly" different species, it seems to me that if a wolf and a dalmation and a cocker spaniel and a greyhound are all the same species, even though they all have different physiques, then just because a Neanderthal looks different isn't reason alone to believe they are of a distinctly different species. The article claims genetic information was passed on, which, since I'm the one without the scientific knowledge, tells me that it is far more likely that Neanderthals are of the same species as humans than they are distinctly different species.
Since the article claims to have mapped the whole of their genome as well as ours, maybe they should clearly state how much deviation is required before one group of animals is declared to be a distinctly different species and whether the Neanderthals' deviation is more or less than that.
quote:
Science is NOT faith. If you can't prove it, it's speculation, not truth.

Since the article claims genetic information was passed on, I claim that is proof that Neanderthals and humans ARE the same species. If you don't believe that, prove that I am wrong. So far all we have is idle speculation! No one has provided any proof that I am even half wrong!


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 4:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Domesticated dogs and wolves are the same species. "

Depends on who you ask. Variants such as the Himalayan Wolf are often considered distinct species. And of course, besides coyotes, dogs can also interbreed with jackals.

Finally, the morphological differences between many of the subspecies of common dog are at least as great as those between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapien. (in fact, some classify Neanderthals as simply a subspecies)

There is no hard-and-fast definition for a species, unfortunately. Biologists have been increasing using ever-smaller differences to subdivide populations that can and do fruitfully interbreed.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 5:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.


By bighairycamel on 5/7/2010 2:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Science is NOT faith. If you can't prove it, it's speculation, not truth.
Oh really? So you're telling me someone, somewhere, has proof that a working strand of DNA or RNA even as small as 100mil base pairs randomly assembled itself all with the proper proteins, amino acids, temperature, UV radiation, and O-zone to assimilate into a feasable working self-replicating cell?

Or do you just have faith that life began that way?


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 2:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
"So you're telling me [it] assimilated into a feasable working self-replicating cell?"

Yes. Google "protocells" for details.

And, if you refuse to believe that, perhaps you can explain why you believe a cell can't form on its own, but a god (who is, by definition, far more complex) can.


By Steve1981 on 5/7/2010 2:44:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but a god (who is, by definition, far more complex) can.


Theoretically, God never formed. God was, is, and shall always be.


By Gungel on 5/7/2010 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 1
God who? I haven't seen him yet. Did you see him or did he talk to you? If he exists, why are there humans in this world that have other Gods. Do their Gods exist as well. Is our God the only one? Who says our God is the true God?


By nstott on 5/7/2010 4:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ask Him yourself, and He might answer if you're polite.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
Your humor brings back fond memories of junior high school.


By Steve1981 on 5/7/2010 5:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the "theoretically" part of my statement? I am under no impression that I possess the absolute truth, nor have I made any claims as such.

I do however appreciate your being a complete and utter @ssbag, and that's the truth.


By drycrust3 on 5/7/2010 8:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
The word "God" is the title for the Supreme god. One difficulty of this arrangement is that one may actually be referring to a lesser god, but have to add a capital letter because of our grammar system, e.g. at the start of a sentence. However, if we look at your sentence, "why are there humans in this world that have other Gods", it should have been written "why are there humans in this world that have other gods" i.e. those people have lesser gods, they don't worship the Supreme god.
"Do their Gods exist as well[?]" -> "Do their gods exist as well?" Ans: probably yes, but there are lots of "ifs" and "buts".
"Who says our God is the true God?" no change required. He says it, and has proved it. Remember the story of Moses and how the Israelites fled Egypt? The night when the Angel of Death killed all the first born was also the night God judged the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12).


By Gungel on 5/8/2010 9:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
Because a story out of a book told you that your God is the true God. Well, my religion says that my God is the true God. And my book tells about a story that makes me believe he is the one.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 3:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
Perchance, would your book be

http://www.amazon.com/Wit-Wisdom-Spiro-T-Agnew/dp/...

I love the review, "I remember when this book was published in 1969. It is as meaningful now as it was then. The writing is flawless and timeless." [Btw, it's a notepad, i.e. empty].


By bighairycamel on 5/7/2010 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. Google "protocells" for details.
...hmm, not sure how that supports your "facts" considering one has never been produced in a lab. Secondly, it relies on the RNA world theory that has many missing links based on prebiotic conditions. One mainly being how chemical reactions could yield necessary amounts of ribose, basically the back bone of RNA. Yet, it had to happen somehow right? So thank you for demonstrating your faith.

quote:
And, if you refuse to believe that, perhaps you can explain why you believe a cell can't form on its own, but a god (who is, by definition, far more complex) can.
Oh please, we could play this game all day. How did matter come into existence? Even if the Higgs Boson exits, it's still a particle and still had to have a definitive beginning right?


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 3
"not sure how that supports your "facts" considering one has never been produced in a lab. "

Err, actually we HAVE produced protocells in the lab. Many times, in fact. We've just never (yet) been able to go from a protocell to an actual cell. But then 300 years ago, we couldn't explain how lightning bolts worked either...did that make them the wrath of god?

In the past century, we've unlocked a massive portion of the mysteries of life. We know how inorganic chemicals can on their own form organic ones such as amino acids. We know how simple organic molecules can self-organize into protocells. And we know how simple single-celled organisms can evolve into more complex multi-celled ones.

That's amazing progress for such a short amount of time. Interpreting our not yet having every single answer in the book as being "proof that gods exist" is short sighted beyond belief.


By bighairycamel on 5/7/2010 3:26:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Err, actually we HAVE produced protocells in the lab. Many times, in fact
Producing a model protocell is not the same as producing a true protocell. Even then, they've never assimilated themselves. And based on knowledge of prebiotic conditions, is nearly beyond the realm of scientific feasability especially when considering the minimal window due to the decomposition of ribose which is as small as a few hours in higher temperatures.
quote:
Interpreting our not yet having every single answer in the book as being "proof that gods exist" is short sighted beyond belief.
Regardless of my belief system, I didn't intend to argue the origins of life, nor did I ever claim this was "proof" God exisits. You merely made an assumption in that regard. My only intention was to give an example of how, by the very definition of the word, faith is displayed by any belief system.

I just don't understand why people don't like to admit that. Why is faith a dirty word that instantly relates a person to a religion? Does it hurt some people's pride to admit, like you admit above, that they don't have all the answers but yet have the "faith" that they did occur?


By nstott on 5/7/2010 4:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt."


By ekv on 5/9/2010 3:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's amazing progress for such a short amount of time. Interpreting our not yet having every single answer in the book as being "proof that gods exist" is short sighted beyond belief.
Your faith is stronger than mine 8) Not believing that God exists takes more faith than otherwise.

Similarly, not having every single answer to life's questions doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

Btw, I am truly curious, where do protocells come from?


By porkpie on 5/9/2010 6:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
" I am truly curious, where do protocells come from?"

They form spontaneously, given conditions seen in certain places in primordial earth. We've actually seen crude protocells form in the lab.


By ekv on 5/9/2010 5:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
So, you are saying protocells are creatio ex nihilo?

Allow me a bit of skepticism there, buddy. Next thing you know we'll be discussing perpetual motion. Which has also been seen "in the lab."


By porkpie on 5/9/2010 6:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
"So, you are saying protocells are creatio ex nihilo?"

Yes indeed. While we haven't created protocells containing RNA replicase, we have seen crude protocells form spontaneously, containing organic compounds, a membraneous cell wall, and that even undergo a form of division and replication. You can read about it here:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?t...


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! They are created 'out of nothing' (ex nihilo)?!


By nafhan on 5/7/2010 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
The negative things that you list as being given to us by "religion" are generally caused by people abusing their positions of power and trust. Abuse of power and trust can occur in any organization, and is not something that would go away in the absence of religion.


By postalbob on 5/7/2010 2:51:00 PM , Rating: 1
Once again: Incorrect.

Major modern religions, which are what drove the current advances in technology occured about 2,000 years ago.

I'm sorry to inform you: Catholics were one of the biggest players in advancements of science and education. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The big bang theory for example was established by the Catholic church. So...Religion must get in the way with their old text books eh?

Based on history one must assume that nomadic people were probably more about lack of religion which limited their progression. Religion provided structure, structure provided belief, belief provided science, considering science is deeply integrated with belief. Science is not about facts. Science is a form of belief.

Modern religion promoted science, not restricted. You're too focused on liberal media talking about stem cells, abortion, and assisted suicide to think straight. Those are moral issues. Most science is not. And most science that was researched and progressed was done so by *gasp* religious researchers.


By ksuWildcat on 5/7/2010 3:18:12 PM , Rating: 3
And what about Galileo Galilei and Copernicanism?


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 3:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
"Catholics were one of the biggest players in advancements of science and education. It's not an opinion. It's a fact."

Tell that to Galileo.

Edward Gibbon, perhaps history's greatest historian, laid the blame for the fall of the Roman Empire and subsequent thousand years of Dark Ages on the rise of the Catholic Church. His arguments are compelling. It's also interesting to note that the Scientific Revolution didn't occur until humanism had begun to supplant religious orthodoxy.

"The big bang theory for example was established by the Catholic church"

I really wonder at people who can believe this nonsense. The theory was not "established by the Church". The progenitor of what eventually became the theory was a physics professor and Catholic priest...and he based his ideas on Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

The Church itself originally condemned the idea, then eventually decided it corresponded well enough with orthodoxy to be accepted.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 4:51:15 PM , Rating: 1
Before the Roman Empire was killing and persecuting "heretics" (falsely) in the name of Christianity, they were killing and persecuting Christians. In fact, the Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus under pressure from the Jewish political (and religious) leaders. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it was just a "Roman thing?"


By postalbob on 5/7/2010 8:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
First of all:

The Catholic priest I mentioned: He was a Catholic Priest. The church did not excommunicate him. They may have questioned his statements but once he proved it, they accepted it. If they pushed so hard they would have AT LEAST excommunicated him. So again, the catholic church DID endorse and research the big bang theory.

If you knew ANYTHING about the catholic church then you would know catholic priests who are scientists (such as that man) do so in order to mix science with religion as SUPPORTED by the church. Thus, I prove my point. Look at everything I just said and you might find you have fallen for all too typical anti religion arguments.

Galileo: The roman catholic church has NEVER endorsed any attacks or wars, though they do often publicly disagree with many things, which if you have a problem with disagreement, go get yourself indoctrinized now. They have every right to publicly say what they disagree with. They DID NOT force Galileo to stop. No war, public harassment, or any other action has EVER been endorsed in chair (which I bet you don't know what that means) which means HUMANS have fought like they always do, NOT Church endorsed actions. The catholic church does NOT have an endorsed or forced way of belief for creationism, media likes to twist this to an either or. They believe it happened somehow through God. How God did that is commonly referred to "The mystery" of life.

Catholics specifically moved forward the science movements. If you believe otherwise you are a fool. They FUNDED priests eductions, and looked into organized education. If you believe otherwise, again, you are a fool.

By the way: Who do you suppose helped this priest to pay for his college...HMMM?? Oh no! The big bad Catholic church couldn't even cut his funding, and you think they PREVENT anything if they aren't even willing to restrict cash flow? How dumb are you?

I'm so sick of leftists like you. So pardon the anger, but you're just shooting trash talk arguments which are more than past the common sense line.


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 9:28:07 PM , Rating: 4
"Again, the catholic church DID endorse and research the big bang theory"

This is like claiming the patent office developed relativity, because Einstein worked for them.

As for the idiocy that Galileo and Copernicus weren't persecuted for their beliefs:
quote:
Theologians, particularly some Protestant ones were vehemently opposed to a theory which set the Earth in motion "in contradiction of the scriptures". Among the first and most ardent opponents of the theory are prominent Protestants such as Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchton and Calvin.

Initially the Roman Catholic church had not opposed the theory...possibly because of [the book's preface, which] suggested that the heliocentric theory was only a mathematical model which simplified computations but did not necessarily insist that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

However, around the turn of the century anti-Copernican sentiments started to grow. It spurred fundamentalist clergymen of many persuasions to search the Bible, line by line, for new passages that would confound the adherents of the Earth's motion. With growing frequency Copernicans were labeled "infidel" and "atheist." When, 67 years after the publication of the first edition, the Catholic Church officially joined the battle against Copernicanism in 1610, the formal charge was heresy.

On March 5, 1616 the Sacred Congregation of the Index recognized the scientific value of De Revolutionibus but placed it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, that is the list of books forbidden as dangerous to the faith or morals of Catholics. It also decreed that, if the book was to be used, a number of "corrections" must be made . The decree was not promulgated until after the 1617 publication of the third edition in Amsterdam.

One of the most famous victims of the Inquisition was Galileo Galilei who was persecuted for his support of the Copernican theory. He had been given permission by his friend, Pope Urban VIII, to write a book about the Copernican and the Ptolemaic system provided he discusses both systems noncommittally. The Inquisition, however, found him guilty of teaching Copernicanism in the resulting book, Dialogue Concerning the two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. His sentence was commuted by the Pope to house arrest under which he spent the last eight years of his life.


I already realize I can't pound any sense into your fool head, but hopefully I can prevent anyone else from falling for your nonsense.


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 11:13:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hahahah!!

You just lost your credibility bud. Spanish inquisition = another form of Catholicism, in which PEOPLE organized by men who like to determine belief, it was NOT the Roman Catholic church.
Good lord, you're ignorant not only of geography and science, but of the history of your own church. There was both an Inquisition and a Spanish Inquisition. Separate institutions.

Did you really believe that Galileo, who lived and was sentenced by the Inquisition in Italy, was tried by the Spanish Inquisition? Or that this had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, when his sentence was commuted to house arrest by the Pope?

"you know that stating something is "heresy!" is the churches right and does not block anything."

It doesn't today. Several centuries ago, those pronouncements had the force of law, and disregarding them meant imprisonment and even death.

Seriously, learn a little history. You're doing your cause more harm than you know. I'm starting to suspect you're actually an atheist, trying to make religious fanatics look ridiculous.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Inquisition was a big political brouhaha over power and control of the church that had little to do with religion.

Your arguments harping on this again and again is equivalent to saying, "Communist atheists killing over 100 million people, including the intentional extermination of the religious, invalidates all of atheism."


By porkpie on 5/7/2010 9:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm so sick of leftists like you."

This is likely the funniest (and most incorrect) thing you've said so far.


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon, Porkypooh! We all know that you're a big AGW believer to boot! ;)


By Reclaimer77 on 5/7/2010 6:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets see..We have scientists who look at evidence and facts to come up with theories that fit.


We also have scientist who believe in something, and then do their best to get the data to correlate that belief. Opps I mean, "theory". Global Warming anyone??


By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's an inconvenient theory right now. :P


By Yojimbo on 5/7/2010 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like how you put that Mick: 'Still, those more inclined to believe in science' A belief is exactly what it is.


Of course it's a belief. Everything is a belief. You believe that if you don't consume food you're gonna die. You believe that when you walk forward you're not gonna fall into an endless abyss. Some beliefs are more accurate than others.


Correction, Jason
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 11:02:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Some humans apparently thought Neanderthals were looking mighty fine
On the contrary, it merely proves beer goggles have existed as long has mankind has.




RE: Correction, Jason
By aegisofrime on 5/7/2010 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it was Neanderthals who thought humans looked mighty fine?


RE: Correction, Jason
By InsaneGain on 5/7/2010 12:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I'm going to guess there was a lot of raping and pillaging going on back then.


RE: Correction, Jason
By bighairycamel on 5/7/2010 2:07:40 PM , Rating: 1
Or ancient beastiality... yuk!


RE: Correction, Jason
By ClownPuncher on 5/7/2010 3:22:00 PM , Rating: 4
Is it the fact that it is ancient that makes it gross, or the fact it is beastiality? Please advise...


RE: Correction, Jason
By Targon on 5/8/2010 9:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
If the two could produce offspring that in turn were able to reproduce, then it makes both of them the same species, doesn't it? So beastiality does not apply, and this would be more like having sex with someone really really ugly.


RE: Correction, Jason
By ImSpartacus on 5/9/2010 8:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, isn't a species defined as a group of organisms that naturally reproduce with each other?

Maybe there's a more complicated general definition. Any Bio majors out there?


RE: Correction, Jason
By porkpie on 5/9/2010 10:59:20 AM , Rating: 5
A species is simply a group that shares common morphological features...exactly how closely related the members have to be is not exactly defined.

Biologists have lately been dividing many populations in ever-smaller species. Take for instance the North American kangaroo rat which is now been divided into 19 different species, all of which can interbreed with each other. Some critics say this is done only so that some of these "species" can be declared endangered, though kangaroo rats as a whole are not.


RE: Correction, Jason
By Patrick Canney on 5/11/2010 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry! Global warming is killing off the beloved Kangaroo Rat? We must act FAST!


RE: Correction, Jason
By kattanna on 5/7/2010 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the contrary, it merely proves beer goggles have existed as long has mankind has


which is the only way to explain how some of the "moms" at the school by our place have a kid

the mere site of some of them is like anti-viagra


RE: Correction, Jason
By Jyrioffinland on 5/7/2010 12:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the transfer appears one way, from Neanderthals to humans.


Suffice to say about who raped whom?


RE: Correction, Jason
By brundall on 5/7/2010 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
Could this have led to the demise of the Neanderthals? Retribution for raping human woman in those times probably involved mass killing / war??


By historywilltell on 5/7/2010 12:26:29 PM , Rating: 5
"Still, those more inclined to believe in science..."

Really?! Are we back to the times when the Church burned people to think that the earth was not flat and revolved around the sun?

You do not believe in science. You dig, you search, you think, you prove...

You believe in a religion, the kind of dogma which can still seriously dictate that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Hilarious? No, tragic! It seems the theory of evolution can be applied to everything except religion.

This study is interesting as it gives us a little more to chew on, when it comes to the human specie and its evolution.




RE: XXI Century discussion? Science vs. religion!
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 9:31:35 PM , Rating: 1
" It seems the theory of evolution can be applied to everything except religion."

Actually, evolution affects religion like anything else. It explains why belief systems that tell people to "be fruitful and multiply" eventually become widespread, whereas religions which forbid people from having sex at all (there have been many of these, in fact) die out very rapidly.


By MadMan007 on 5/8/2010 6:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think he was saying that religion itself doesn't evolve but rather sticks to certain dogma in the face of contrary evidence.


RE: XXI Century discussion? Science vs. religion!
By porkpie on 5/8/2010 8:59:12 AM , Rating: 5
But dogma does evolve in response to contrary evidence...it just rarely evolves towards truth. For instance, consider that prior to the Diaspora, Jews had no real concept of an afterlife, full of reward or punishment. Virtuous men were rewarded here on Earth. But when the Jews were getting their fannies kicked up and down the Levant, it became impossible to reconcile that belief with their viewpoint as God's own chosen people. Why were they suffering so much, when those filthy pagans were enjoying the fruits of the earth?

So rather than give up their chosen status, Jewish religious thought evolved to state rewards were given in the afterlife, and 'Sheol' became a place of eternal punishment for evil men.

There are countless more examples, including the Christian and Muslim religions. It's actually a fascinating subject,analyzing how the supposedly "eternal truths" of a religion illogically evolves to try to justify itself in terms of changing realities.


RE: XXI Century discussion? Science vs. religion!
By Starcub on 5/9/2010 3:20:47 PM , Rating: 1
You're outside of your field here. True religion evolves towards a greater understanding of truth. Dogma generally does not evolve, at least in the sense of changing positions based on contrary evidence.

FYI, the idea of an afterlife has always been a part of the Jeudeo Christian faith since inception at the fall of man. You can find evidence in early Hebrew culture of prayers for the dead. There has always been an expectation on the part of Jews and Christians alike for both good things in this world and the next. However, there has never been an expection for good things from those outside of their community. Finally, Sheol is not a place of punnishment for the wicked -- that would be Gehenna. Sheol refers to a general holding place for the dead irrespective of their status as good or evil -- they have not yet been judged.

Religion is a means of discovering eternal truths: truths that remain true regardless of how the world evolves.


RE: XXI Century discussion? Science vs. religion!
By porkpie on 5/9/2010 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 3
"FYI, the idea of an afterlife has always been a part of the Jeudeo Christian faith since inception"

Incorrect. To quote from Dr. James Tabor, Chairman of Religious Studies at UNC:

quote:
The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death
He then talks about the transformation of Jewish thought
quote:
As we move to the period of first Greek and then Roman domination of the eastern Mediterranean world (the fourth century B.C.E. to the first century C.E.), the biblical materials reflect drastic development with regard to the view of the future. The older Hebrew view of the cosmos, the restoration of national Israel, and the transformed cosmos of the new age–continue, but they are fundamentally transformed and merged in rather complicated ways. Two views dominate: the hope of an eschatological transformation of the cosmos and the notion that an immortal soul escapes the body at death to enter the heavenly world.

(BTW, Tabor says nearly exactly what my history professors taught me many years ago)
.

". Finally, Sheol is not a place of punnishment for the wicked -- that would be Gehenna"

The concepts of both Sheol and the (much later) concept of Gehenna have both evolved dramatically through history. Originally, as I stated above, there was no "place of punishment" after death. Sheol was simply the grave...death itself.

"True religion evolves towards a greater understanding of truth."

I got a nice chuckle out of this, thanks.


By Starcub on 5/11/2010 11:19:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To quote from Dr. James Tabor, Chairman of Religious Studies at UNC:

Sorry, but your proffessor doesn't know what he's talking about. The expectation of life after death can be found throughout the Old Testament. As I said, prayers for the dead originated with the Hebrews. There was knowledge that there would be a day of judgement, and that those judged worthy would recieve heavenly reward (in fact I can recall at least one OT prophet who was received bodily into Heaven), but they didn't know when or how they would be judged. They expected that they would be given a Messiah -- a decent of Adam -- to undo the work of sin. They knew that the Messiah would come for their salvation, but they didn't know when or how. That understanding became clear with the comming of Christ.
quote:
Originally, as I stated above, there was no "place of punishment" after death. Sheol was simply the grave...death itself.

Not true: what you wrote is available for everyone to see:
quote:
Jewish religious thought evolved to state rewards were given in the afterlife, and 'Sheol' became a place of eternal punishment for evil men.

Originally you stated that Sheol was a place of punnishment for the dead, now you are claiming that Sheol is simply the state of death. Well I suppose that's a little closer to the truth. However, the dead don't cease to exist after they die; that too has always been known in the Hebrew tradition.

quote:
quote:
"True religion evolves towards a greater understanding of truth."

I got a nice chuckle out of this, thanks.

I did say *true* religion. The implication being that one needs Help to see eternal truths -- keep it up, you might get somewhere ;)


RE: XXI Century discussion? Science vs. religion!
By Targon on 5/8/2010 10:12:29 AM , Rating: 5
Religion itself does not have anything to do with a belief or disbelief of science. The problem comes from religious leaders who do not have enough understanding to be able to show how science does not disprove most of their belief system.

Religion as a whole goes beyond following religious leaders. If every religious leader and ORGANIZATION were to suddenly disappear, the belief system is still in place, and you would end up with people who will still follow their religious beliefs, even without someone preaching to them. People of the same beliefs will still organize, and so on.

Not everyone who is religious is closed to what science discovers, and not every religious person takes religious texts in a literal way, even though the most vocal do.

On the science front, too many people look at what has been discovered so far to be an absolute truth, rather than potentially being just a part of that truth as well. I am not advocating religion or God or some other being here, just showing that there is far more to the Universe than the scientists have yet even suggested.

One thing that most people believe is that humans have five senses, with some believing in a sixth sense, telepathy, or some other way to sense things that others can not. Now, sight and sound being OUR method of perceiving the world and universe around us, it almost blinds most people to the idea that there may be other ways to perceive the universe that we just don't have. Even the idea of the Big Bang is based on light and radiation that come to us across the vast distances of the universe. It is ASSUMED based on this that there even was a Big Bang that started the universe, but it is possible that it was just one event that spawned light, but who knows if there may have been something else going on that our senses just are not capable of detecting.

Remember, if the entire human species had never had any sense of sight, the concept of SEEING just wouldn't be in our minds since other senses would allow us to function(assuming we otherwise evolved). A wise person not only has an understanding of what he/she/it knows, but also knows that he/she/it does not know everything. I feel that many scientists are blinded by their knowledge to the fact that there are just too many things that we as humans just would not be able to sense or even comprehend without another few million years of evolution.


By AnnihilatorX on 5/10/2010 5:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
However, scientific experiments are performed using apparatus ad not senses. From magnetometers, voltmeters, to probe gravitons, neurtinos, acts are all not part of our natural senses.

Scientists did not assume light is the only tool that can glance into nature of Big Bang, but light is the only tool we have and capable of detecting for some events occuring that long time ago at the moment.

We discoverend magnetic fields without sense of magnetic fields built in. If a species have no eyes but intelligient, I don't think they cannot discover light by its effects such as heat.


By AnnihilatorX on 5/10/2010 5:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
Points to add

What I was trying to say was
If there is some mysterious force of nature we haven't discovered, as long as that force interacts with the world, matter and energy, we will be able to discover it.

I'll name an example, Casmir Effect

However, if a force does not interact with matter, or energy in any way, does not affect the world, we might just as well consider it to not exist at all.


By Quadrillity on 5/10/2010 11:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, scientific experiments are performed using apparatus ad not senses.


Any type of instrumentation is nothing more than an extention of our body and senses.


By AnnihilatorX on 5/11/2010 4:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it does so by transforming senses we don't exist into senses we have. This does not void my argument.


So...
By geddarkstorm on 5/7/2010 12:41:22 PM , Rating: 5
We're the same species?

Any two members who can interbreed and produce viable (meaning they can then reproduce) offspring are the same species. Check.

"The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans." Check.

By their methods ("as a fraction of the lineage from the human reference genome to the common ancestor of Neandertals"), any two humans are 10% divergent, while Neanderthals are 12% divergent -- statistically insignificant? Or put another way: "Furthermore, whereas in the French, Han, and Papuan individuals, 9.8%, 7.8%, and 5.9% of windows, respectively, show between 0% and 2% divergence to the human reference genome, in the San and the Yoruba this is the case for 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. For the three Neandertals, 2.2 to 2.5% of windows show 0% to 2% divergence to the reference genome." That is, Neanderthals are within the human variation from the human reference genome. Check.

"Neandertals are more closely related to present-day non-Africans than to Africans." This also suggests Neanderthals are a human sub-type, since if they were a true other species, there wouldn't be a consistent bias towards one human ethnic region over another. Check.

Anatomically, we and Neanderthals are less different than any breed of dog from another. Check.

On the other hand, mitochondrial DNA is rather divergent. However, mtDNA is a lineage specific (mother to offspring) thing. But it raises questions of how mtDNA could have been different between us and Neanderthals if we are the same species, and only separate sub-species. How would they have gotten such different mtDNA? This is definitely a very large anti-check.

All quotes were from the Science paper itself. Very interesting info, and a lot to wonder about.




RE: So...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 4:11:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Any two members who can interbreed and produce viable (meaning they can then reproduce) offspring are the same species. Check.


Nope.

Consider the "Wholphin", the cross between a Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus (mother), and a false killer whale Pseudorca crassidens that was bred at the Sea Life Park in Hawaii. (Wholphins have also been reported to rarely occur in the wild)

It was fertile, gave birth to three offspring. Granted two died, but the third calf survived and thrived.

Now dolphins and false killer whales belong to the same family, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that they're the same species -- they're very genetically and morphologically distinct.

The same could be true of humans and neanderthals. The cross breeding is indeed remarkable, but genetically we're most certainly NOT the same species, despite our apparent ability to cross breed and produce fertile offspring.


RE: So...
By ClownPuncher on 5/7/2010 5:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Other good examples would be the Lonicera Fly, Zonkey (Zeebra Donkey), Liger (yes, lion/tiger), Mulard duck. etc.


RE: So...
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/7/2010 7:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
RE: So...
By Targon on 5/8/2010 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
There are cases where different species can produce offspring, but the key is if those offspring are also capable of reproducing or not. That is the key to "viable" being the most important word here.

Now, the use of sub-species is key here, because it really links things together. You have different breeds of cats and dogs, and there are distinct differences between the breeds. In different environments, some differences will be a key to survival, while in other environments, others will. Just because there were significant differences between the two groups, the offspring between human and neanderthal from this tended to be more like humans, which is why things happened the way they did.

It is also a key when you look at future generations to see if offspring end up as an evolutionary dead end or not. In your example, the Wholphin produced three calves, one that survived. Now, if you could get several that are not related to then mate, what is the chance for survival? If it again is one out of three survive, then there just need to be a LOT more births over time to grow the new breed. So yes then, same species, but the resulting offspring just don't end up being a breed that would flourish and grow to dominance.

Then, you could also do the test, can a Wholphin successfully produce offspring with either of the original species and produce something that now has a better survival factor, yet still has traits from both breeds? So, Wholphin+Bottlenose Dolphin, or Wholphin+Pseudorca Crassidens? If the pairings work, even if rare of in a scientific experiment, and if the offspring end up being more viable than Wholphin+Wholphin, that would also lend credit to the report in the article. So, you have an initial pairing between two sub-species to bring some DNA in, but then the offspring end up going to one of the original sub-species rather than the other.


RE: So...
By Rockinelle on 5/10/2010 9:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
True, but those different breeds of dogs that have favorable traits in their respective environments that lead them to thrive are all still dogs! Science is very caught up in the classifications of species, breeds, races, etc which is just a modern invention. Man-made labels doesn't prove evolution or that neanderthals are not human.

Are we to assign the Sherpas that live in the Himalayas their own species because they have characteristics that lead them to thrive in their climate? They are short wiry people that have extreme tolerance for high altitudes.

I would contend that every real (none of the hoaxes) caveman/pre-man found is human. Even further people need to examine this carefully because it all looks like modern racism to me.

I think the people that trust these types of reports have more faith than a Christian. It's very hard to believe they perfectly separated out the 97% of the DNA that was not neanderthal from their sample. That's not a very good sample where you can only keep 3%.

Besides, how can they tell he has an afro looking at his skeleton? :)


RE: So...
By geddarkstorm on 5/10/2010 2:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Err, no. It doesn't matter if two things breed and have an offspring that lives. That isn't what "viable" means. That offspring must then go on and have /it's own offspring/. Those wholphins are sterile (as far as I know). Just like mules, which are a cross of a horse and a donkey. Mules survive very easily, but because donkeys and horses are different species, they are all naturally sterile.

If you can breed and produce fertile offspring, you're the same species. Otherwise, how will you classify species? On some arbitrary number you assign for "relatedness" of DNA? Nature will decide what's related enough or not by if it can propagate, not our artificial ideas. After all, it's the propagation that's important in the first place to genetics, isn't it?


RE: So...
By geddarkstorm on 5/10/2010 2:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Correction on my part, the wholphin wasn't sterile, misread. Which, argues for them being the same species ;). They look different? Well, so does a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua!


RE: So...
By bhougha10 on 5/10/2010 6:54:08 PM , Rating: 3
This was a great post geddarkstorm. I would bet that this "species" from the artical is more closely related to me then say the Aborigine people of Australia. So would that make the Aborigine people a different "Species".


RE: So...
By tookablighty on 5/10/2010 7:46:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would bet that this "species" from the artical is more closely related to me then say the Aborigine people of Australia.
what's funny is you don't have the slightest idea how badly you just insulted yourself.


RE: So...
By bhougha10 on 5/11/2010 10:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not insulted at all. What you don't understand is that with selective breeding, you could create "species" of humans that look so much different then the typical person. Probably just like these cavemen, maybe even more unique.


Is it just me?
By Dorkyman on 5/7/2010 10:57:47 AM , Rating: 1
Does anyone else besides me think Mr. Caveman looks absolutely ridiculous with a leaf covering his crotch? Also, how do you think he kept the leaf attached? Velcro? SuperGlue?

There is a far bigger story here.




RE: Is it just me?
By kd9280 on 5/7/2010 10:59:58 AM , Rating: 1
Nono, there's a little strap of leather he has attached to the sides of the leaf. It's the prehistoric thong bikini.


RE: Is it just me?
By frobizzle on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Is it just me?
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 11:16:04 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, he looks far more like an Earth Day celebrant.


RE: Is it just me?
By thepalinator on 5/7/2010 11:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Is it just me?
By grenableu on 5/7/2010 12:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
I like this earth day protestor better.

http://www.gogreencharleston.org/images/ffday_drea...


RE: Is it just me?
By Spivonious on 5/7/2010 11:40:51 AM , Rating: 3
I'm amazed that they could still develop the film.


RE: Is it just me?
By nafhan on 5/7/2010 12:40:26 PM , Rating: 4
You have to look at his face, too. He's just as surprised by the leaf as you are.


Hister was wrong
By Grabo on 5/7/2010 11:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
It is cool.

What I read in a newspaper though, and what is said here:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/06/... is that : >
"Genetic sequences from the three non-African modern individuals (from Papua New Guinea, China and France) were statistically more likely to be similar to Neanderthals than the sequences from southern Africa and West Africa."

So the purest race? Well, someone got it wrong :p




RE: Hister was wrong
By geddarkstorm on 5/7/2010 12:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
Consider too how one of the requirements to be the same species is that you can -interbreed and produce viable offspring-... and apparently that's what we and Neanderthals did? By all classical definitions, we are the same species.

Actually looking at their paper, they found that human sequences (by the way they measured it, which isn't an absolute method, so these numbers are an order of magnitude or two greater than direct sequence to sequence comparisons) differ from each other by 10%, while Neanderthals differ 10-12% from the human sequences. Not that different! Moreover, only a handful of genes had differences that they found, somewhere like 20 or so. Finally, from the paper itself
quote:
The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans.


Where Neanderthals differ from humans is primarily in their mitochondrial DNA. But according to this study, Neanderthals and humans are the same species, only separate sub-species. There's far less differences between us and Neanderthals than there are between any breed of dog and another!


RE: Hister was wrong
By Strunf on 5/7/2010 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Not that different!"
The number may be small but when it comes to DNA even a small difference can mean a lot!


RE: Hister was wrong
By Duwelon on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hister was wrong
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 3
' "science" books had full blown pictures of lucy...yet all that was acuallu found was a single bone'

Nice try, but they actually found several hundred pieces of bone...nearly 40% of Lucy's entire skeleton:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth101/austr...


I believe....
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2010 1:13:59 PM , Rating: 4
We are here from evolution.....nothing more.




RE: I believe....
By mircea on 5/8/2010 3:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
^^^^^ Title says it all :)


Complete? Like everything, it's relative.
By iFX on 5/7/2010 10:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
Having the map and knowing the locations are two entirely different things.




By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
One of those two things must precede the other.


By MadMan007 on 5/8/2010 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or in this case, ancient relative.


debate?
By zodiacfml on 5/7/2010 11:54:34 AM , Rating: 3
please don't invoke an argument versus science of religion especially when the news source does not raise it.




RE: debate?
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
Any story is tailored for the intended audience, and in this case the intended audience is one in which creationist notions have a high tendency of popping up. There's nothing wrong with anticipating likely responses from various parties.


Amazing stuff
By Abrahmm on 5/7/2010 11:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty amazing stuff. I find evolution to be one of the most fascinating scientific discoveries to date.




Species?
By nafhan on 5/7/2010 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
So, if Neanderthals can interbreed with "humans", should there really be a distinction between Neanderthals and humans? I've definitely known people who would fit the morphological description. It seems they're not that much different than some current racial/geographic groups. Probably just my anthropological ignorance speaking...




Uh really?
By Silver2k7 on 5/8/2010 2:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
Atleast they (aka the Church) are not empowered or allowed to burn people (and scientists) as witches anymore.

"The hard evidence it provides is discomforting for those whose religious doctrines claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old."




By icanhascpu on 5/9/2010 3:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
'boned'.




God
By Zingam on 5/10/2010 7:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
It is true! God created the world 5000 years ago but made so that it appeared to be billions of years old.




By mstrmac on 5/14/2010 1:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
One of the books I'd recommend is called "The Long War Against God: The history and impact of the creation/evolution conflict" by Henry Morris.

Here is an interesting summary that someone gave about this book on Amazon.com. I thought it was spot on. There are many more such books; i.e., Darwin's Leap of Faith by John Ankerberg; Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing by William Dembski; Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, The Mystery of Life's Origin by Thaxton, et al, and many more.

Here are some points about the book that I would like to emphasise:

1) Evolution could not be God's method of creation. It is too cruel, inefficient and irrational. Jesus' nature (the incarnate WORD), life and character are a vivid refutation of evolution.

2) (remember that in 3 days Jesus rose again with a new body. He didn't need 3 billions of years of struggle, suffering and death to evolve one).

3) Evolution is part of different pagan traditions that developed (specially after Babel) in the darkness of sin. These traditions have always been with us. Platonism and Aristotelism are just to examples of how these traditions influenced christian theology (Augustine and Aquinas), because christian theologians thought that the Bible might be missing something. Henry Morris, followint the teachings of Jesus and His apostles (v.g. Peter, Paul) simply states that the Bible is not missing something. If one reads the Bible, one has to conclude that that's exactely what the Bible teaches about itself.

4) The Sermon of the Mount is the proof that God has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. Every time christians engage in deception, violence, murder and genocide (which unfortunately they have done), they are violating the laws of the Creator and showing that "all have sinned: all fall short of God's glorious ideal" Rom 3-23).

5) Contrary to popular belief, science hasn't proved evolution, nor could it, because evolution simply didin't happen. If you think science has proved evolution, think again:

a) the origin of the universe and the origin of life remain a mistery. Even Miller and Urey have confessed that life may be much more complicated than they have thought. How can one affirm evolution as a fact when the first step (the origin of life) of it remains a profound mistery? The prebiotic soup and abiogenesis are nothing but a just-so story.

b)It is still to be found a single mutation that is able to create new DNA information that codes for new functions and structures. Mutations reshuffle, duplicate sort, exchange, remove or maintain pre-existing information. They just don't create new information. Natural selection removes information. Speciation is not evolution. Creationist only deny the latter. They perfectly accept (and predict) natural selection and speciation.

c) There are no transitional forms in the fossil record and in molecular biologicy. Based on evolution's predictions, we should expect trillions. The few that have been put forward are highly controversial, even among evolutionists. Not a single one is consensual among evolutionists themselves.

d) Vestigial organs are not vestigial organs after all. The same is true about "junk-DNA". Both turn out to have a design function. So much for another "proof" of evolution.

e) Evidence of design is overwhelming and growing. Examples of irreducible complexity and complex specified information abound. Fine-tuning is everywhere. Billions of examples.

f) Some so called bad design is simply not bad design, or it may be the result of deterioration. The Panda's thumb is actually excellent design, after all. Steven Jay Gould was just a "nasty little boy".

g) Gradualism didn't happen. Creationists will have to agree with Steven Jay Gould on this one.

h) Saltationism and punctuaded equilibrium are "scientific" nonsense. Creationists will have to agree with Richard Dawkins on this one.

i) Many geologists speak in terms of (Lyell's) uniformitarianism. But the rocks and the fossils themselves are shouting: "Flood!". The Flood remains the best explanation for the existence of numerous flood traditions, the fossil record, the continental drift, the ice age, oil and coal deposits, the catastrophic evidence of rock formation and displacement, etc.

j) "Ontogenesis recapitulate phylogenesis". Just one more example of a failed attempt to prove evolution. Nice try. It has been refuted and Haeckel's embrios denounced as fake. The problem is that for many decades this was used to persuade people that evolution was a scientific fact. Many imature young christians used it to "debunk" God's Word.

k) Creationists are not against science. God's created universe is there to be known and studied. However, the Universe is not just matter, energy, space and time. It is also information. Information is the bridge between God's mind, the universe and human's mind. The more we appreciate it, the more we can see God's glory. Human brains and the Earth itself have been designed by God for scientific discovery.

and ti supplement:
A) The Bible is basically a record of one family of Humans and their decendants formed, whos patriarch was called ADAM. Other mankind were created on the six day as it is written. ADAM in the Hebrew means ruddy, someone who can blush.

B) The Bible clearly says this earth is millions of years old. Not what you have been taught. Fact accumulated by line by line study of all the Books, not one verse out of context blabbering

http://www.amazon.com/Lon...id=1273647438&sr=8-1




Body Scanner
By Nurn on 5/7/2010 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 1
I just finished reading the article "TSA Worker Assaults Boss After Body Scanner Reveals Genitalia", and thought that maybe Daily Tech posted the picture above (naked Neanderthal) in the wrong story?




Which is best?
By FaceMaster on 5/12/2010 9:36:30 AM , Rating: 1
Which would you rather do?

http://static.open.salon.com/files/neanderthal_nar...

http://migg.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/neandertha...

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachment...

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog6/images...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/...

It's definitely a close call between 4 and 5. If you think it's 2, rate me 2, if you think it's 5, rate me 5! And if you think I could do better than any of these, rate me -1.




enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By desertpenguin85 on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/7/2010 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 3
We are here from evolution, get over it.....


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By jahwarrior on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 2:44:21 PM , Rating: 3
"if you disagree go stand in front of an x-ray machine"

You seriously cannot be this dense. If you are, please respond and I'll list just a few of the fallacies in the above statement.

And yes, we have proof that some mutations are beneficial, rather than deleterious. In fact, man's exploitation of evolution through natural selection explains why modern food grains are over 50X as productive as the original species, and why modern chickens can lay one large egg a day, rather than one tiny egg a week, as they used to.


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By jahwarrior on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 3:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
slective breeding simply brings out genetic features that are already in the genome!…no mutations needed


No mutations needed? Surely you are joking. Or insane.

Ancient corn, chickens, pigs, etc. did not bear the slightest resemblance to modern stocks. Random mutations produced subtle variations, some of which were desirable in the eyes of humans and were artificially selected. Many of these features were ALSO beneficial to the organism -- such as drought resistance, disease resistance, etc.

To this very day the agriculture industry is creating new breeds of plants and animals. You need only look to your local produce store to observe brand new BENEFICIAL mutations.

Please educate yourself.

quote:
It's a proven scientific fact that mutations are harmful to an organism.


Then do us all a favor and mutate and disappear.


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By Duwelon on 5/7/2010 4:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Prescribe ignorance and use personal attacks, this is how truth is found!


By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
If that was all he did, you'd have a point. As it is, he sure seems to explain the obvious results of genetic mutation in crops. Your retort, if any?


By jahwarrior on 5/10/2010 6:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
Come on mick are you joking….calling genetic engineering the same thing as random mutations that occur in nature.

These genetically modified plants and animals you’re referring to are created in a lab(through recumbent dna, etc. that does not occur in nature) and are definitely not created through random mutations…

I was pointing out that Random mutations that occur in nature are detrimental to a plant/animal because they are…ever heard of genetic load….the reduction in fitness of a species due to mutation…along with cancers and other genetic diseases…..mutations(corruption of data) are bad for any organism or system…introduce a bunch of data corruption into an ordered system such as your windows os and what are you going to get “snappy new features” nope your going to get the BSoD. Game over.


By nstott on 5/7/2010 5:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to inform you, but you are a mutant!

Every individual has mutations, about 100 to 200 that are unique from their parents, which occur as a natural part of the process of life.

For clarification, I am not referring to other types of mutations, like those caused by chemicals and radiation, which can be carcinogenic.


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By Rugar on 5/7/2010 2:57:19 PM , Rating: 3
I am not going to get involved in your deeper argument, but you need to be very careful in your statement "Mutations destroy the genome they do not add to it!" This is false. Mutations can exist as deletions, additions, or substitutions. All of these cases can result in changes to phenotype or to no detectable changes.

For a specific example, look up "antibiotic resistant bacteria". If you truly want to educate yourself so that your arguments aren't false from the very beginning; research Hox genes, gene duplication, and homeoboxes. Once you understand this, then you can argue your point from a position of knowledge rather than blatant ignorance.


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By jahwarrior on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
By Duwelon on 5/7/2010 3:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
Even a virus that has a mutation that prevents an antibiotic from harming it isn't good for the virus in the long run. Antibiotics tend to attack very specific parts of a cell and if the target is mutated the antibodys effect is going to impacted. But hey at least someone born with no legs makes him immune to athletes foot.


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/7/2010 4:05:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Drug resistant bacterium are not necessarily due to genetic mutations…its due to the over use of antibiotics. Some bacterium are already genetically resistant to antibiotics (no mutations needed) and the overuse of antibiotic kills off the nonresistant versions and simply leaves the resistant bacterium to take over. Also as we know viruses and bacterium are more apt to freely exchange genetic material.


You are remarkably wrong, my friend. Single cell lines containing no natural genetic resistance have been shown to develop it when exposed to antibiotics.

As to viruses somehow conferring protection against antibiotics to bacteria that is extraordinarily unlikely, as the primary directive of a virus is to duplicate its genetic material, encode its carrier vessel, and trigger its expulsion from the cell.

Viruses seldom code for non coat proteins, and the chance that they would code proteins that confer antibiotic resistance is extraordinarily unlikely.


By jahwarrior on 5/11/2010 5:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
if you have an open mind..read this link regarding drug resistant bacteria

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-antibiotic-re...

again like I said before mutations reduce the overall fitness of an organism and lead to extinction, that is my point


RE: enough of evolutinary nonsense, really!
By Rugar on 5/7/2010 5:06:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Of course if you want to go into more detail than this blog space allows....long story short many mutations do not result in changes to our genome and we are lucky that they don’t....what I was saying and trying to emphasize is when mutations DO effect the genome…it is in a very detrimental and deadly way.


No, what you said specifically is that "Mutations destroy the genome they do not add to it!" I pointed out that this was false. I explained how mutations can either add, subtract, or change parts of the genome of a species. I will agree that the large proportion of mutations are deleterious. That doesn't mean that all mutations are "very detrimental and deadly".

As Jason mentioned, it has been demonstrated that drug resistance can be induced in a microbial cell line which has previously been shown to have no resistance. Further, naturally "tetraploid" (I put that in quotes because they are not true tetraploids as the term is normally used) salmonids have been shown to have duplicate genes which result in novel functions. The true "usefulness" of these duplicated genes are unknown, but they are clearly viable.


By desertpenguin85 on 5/8/2010 1:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
but do you have an idea about how these insertions/deletion increase information in the genome?

it really make no sense to me at all! everytime somebody dug out some bones in some god forsaken African desert, they'd say "this is hominid type X, type Y"!! ummm can you rule out the fact that these may belong to some ancient species that went extent?! they may have had bone structures similar to man or apes but hey, they could be some freaking animals that went extent!!

i am not coming from a religious background or anything, unless you show me a process by which information increase in the genome, evolution is a fairy tale as far as am concerned. how could specie A genome develop more survival traits overtime?? how can intelligence information increase??

when i think about the human body, and see how every subsystem is designed, and how these subsystems interact with each other to accomplish a certain function... I say no way this could have evolved by a random process..

so really, enough with evolutionary nonsense.


By Rugar on 5/9/2010 2:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you are apparently either unwilling to read the information I suggested or you are incapable of understanding what you read. Let's use the salmonid information that I suggested:

Duplication of genes in the salmonid genome has led to novel functions. Thus, the mutation which caused the duplication has resulted in both an increase in genome complexity and the addition of new functions. Your assertions that 1) Mutations can not result in increases in genome complexity and 2) Mutations can not add functions are thereby shown to be false.

All of your other arguments are about what you think, not fact based. As I mentioned before, I have no interest in arguing your other points. I am merely pointing out the fallacies in your arguments so that your primary argument can be made from a position of knowledge. The essence of a scientific debate is to use factual arguments to advance an hypothesis. If your facts are false, then people will use that to attack your hypothesis rather than consider it on its merit.


By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Drug resistant bacterium are not necessarily due to genetic mutations…its due to the over use of antibiotics.

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the bottom!"

Logic: Not Your Enemy.


Really Cool Stuff
By hiscross on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Really Cool Stuff
By iFX on 5/7/2010 11:03:33 AM , Rating: 4
You're insane.


RE: Really Cool Stuff
By SSDMaster on 5/14/2010 10:28:58 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe people put any stock in all these new "findings". It seems anyone can claim their a scientist and release new "data". If you want to believe the world is heating up, then all of a sudden new data is presented.

If you want to believe your Super great great grandmother was turned on by monkey dudes.... there's data for that too!


Figures
By kaoken on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Figures
By kaoken on 5/7/2010 12:44:47 PM , Rating: 1
BTW, I meant to say explains his intelligence LOL. His politics is another matter altogether.


RE: Figures
By milkyway4me on 5/7/2010 1:13:45 PM , Rating: 1
At least he didn't try to enter the WH through a window or any of the other countless embarrassing blunders our current pres has made on camera. I haven't either, maybe i should be POTUS.


RE: Figures
By nstott on 5/10/2010 12:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki