backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by William Gaatje.. on Jan 24 at 4:23 PM


While the mammalian Y chromosome (males only) may be much smaller than the X chromosome that predominates in females (males have one X, females two), this males only chromosome is evolving much faster. As a result male primates were found to be evolving faster than females.  (Source: Nature.com)
The Y chromosome is evolving fast to deal with genetic pressures of varying mating habits, such as chimp group mating

Modern biochemistry and genetics is just beginning to unlock the complex secrets of evolution, the process in which organisms change over long periods of time through random genetic variation and selective pressures.  With a handful of genomes sequenced, scientists can now start mining this data to find interesting trends and evidence of the course evolution is taking, particularly in humans.

A provocative and intriguing new study reveals that past thought on the Y chromosome, the chromosome that instructs mammals to develop into males, may be entirely flawed and that the chromosome, previously thought to evolving at a crawl, may in fact be evolving far faster than other chromosomes.  Human females typically have two X chromosomes, while males have an X and a Y chromosome.

It was previously thought that autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) and the X sex chromosome featured greater diversity (faster evolution) than the Y sex chromosome, a smaller chromosome.  According to the new study, led by Jennifer Hughes, a postdoctoral researcher in Whitehead Institute Director David Page’s lab.  The research indicates that primate males may be evolving significantly faster than females.

To determine how fast the Y chromosome was changing, the scientists needed a point to compare our Y chromosomes against.  The human Y chromosome had been comprehensively sequenced by the Page lab and the Genome Center at Washington University in 2003.  A promising target was DNA from chimpanzees -- a close relative of humans on the evolutionary tree.  However, the 2005 sequencing of the chimpanzee genome excluded the Y chromosome, mostly, due to its hundreds of repeating sequences that threw off sequencing techniques at the time.

Undeterred, researchers at the Page lab and Genome Center at Washington University completed sequencing the chimpanzee Y chromosome, using newer techniques.  What was discovered was amazing.  The Y chromosome, thought to be a musty unchanging stretch of genes had changed significantly between humans and apes in terms of structure and content.  Approximately one third to a half of genes found in the human version of the chromosome were lost in the chimp chromosome, since chimps diverged from humans in the evolutionary tree.

Professor David Page compares these changes to a constantly renovated home, stating, "People are living in the house, but there’s always some room that’s being demolished and reconstructed.  And this is not the norm for the genome as a whole."

Wes Warren, Assistant Director of the Washington University Genome Center, another top genetics expert, agrees that the findings are extraordinary, "This work clearly shows that the Y is pretty ingenious at using different tools than the rest of the genome to maintain diversity of genes.  These findings demonstrate that our knowledge of the Y chromosome is still advancing."

One thing that may be driving faster evolution of the male sex chromosome is differing mating habits between species.  Where as humans typically take a single partner during sexual intercourse, numerous chimpanzees often mate with a single female in a short time period.  Males who produce more sperm, or whose sperm is better at impregnating females will have a better chance at beating the other males' sperm and passing on his genes.

To give an idea of just how profound this effect is, the difference between the rest of the human and chimp chromosomes is only 2 percent.  That means that the male sex chromosome is evolving nearly 15 times faster, or more, on average than the female genome.

The Page lab and the Washington University Genome Center are now looking at the Y chromosomes of several other mammals to further determine if this faster rate of male evolution is a characteristic of primates only, or other mammal lines as well. 

The study on the work was published in the prestigious journal Nature, and can be found here.

The research was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).

Where as chimps have evolved to cope with the genetic pressures of group sex, human males and females have evolved on a different course.  Recent research indicated that human females are slowly evolving to be shorter and to carry more weight.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By jahwarrior on 1/14/2010 2:32:37 PM , Rating: 0
Thanks for your concern…

It depends how you define evolution, in this sense I mean from molecules to man (macroevolution). Again, okay chimp/ape like ancestor, okay abogenesis as opposed to evolution, simply a manner of semantics.

Yes understanding the origin of life is the only way to understand the whole process of macroevolution (from molecules to man) you want to take look at part of the process... ape/chimp like ancestor to man, as you probably think this is the easiest part to defend.

Tell me what is the driver of evolution under your confirmed theory? How does a chimp like ancestor evolve into a human?, we know its definitely not by genetic mutations….

Peace


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2010 3:39:38 PM , Rating: 3
You and most people forget you are part of an ecosystem. You are not a seperate entity like described in the bible.
You are invested with bacteria and viruses that fight you for survival. And you fight them. Some of those bacteria and even viruses live in symbiosis with you. All of this means there is a lot of sharing of dna. And it did not start with humans. It has been like this since there where viruses and bacteria and simpler forms of complex lifeforms as we know today. The accumulated different parts of dna of the bacteria and viruses infesting you every second of the day outnumbers your own dna. Your cells together with the bacteria and viruses that live on you and inside (in symbiosis) you are constantly fighting of bacteria and viruses that are hostile to you. But it comes with a price...

Now this happens with every life form on the planet.
Mutations happen all the time. If god exists, god would be a bacteria and gods adversary a phage. But then again, if god exists, god would be a phage and gods adversary would be a bacteria.


By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2010 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 3
And then i am not even mentioning the effects of the more powerful forms of electromagnetic radiation. How about some cosmic radiation ? And there are many many types of viruses.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By postalbob on 1/14/2010 11:11:52 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I have to point out the following to you and everyone here. It's just to prove you "scientists" are a form of "religion" no different than the other "religions", and you yourself are bent on trying to state religion is "against you" to prove your own point. Everyone has an agenda, but you "scientists" are just all about "facts" right? I call bull#$@ to you Mr. Gates and here's why:

The "scientist" who established the theory of evolution...Guess who it was and how? Seriously, the fact that you don't know this is ridiculous. The fact that most scientists ignore this is bull.

It was a CATHOLIC scientist, who was part of some of the FIRST movements into science from any organized group. Catholicism lead the scientific research front. Religion does not believe anything that you're saying Mr Gates. You're putting words down it's throat. They believe something happened, and God was involved. Either way, when faced with a childish scientist who honestly thinks that in a universe in which there is no scientific explanation possible (and EVERY scientist who has any knowledge knows this) "It just is" is a better arguement than "something made it that way" is just an idiot. At best the "it just is" is equal to "something made it that way."

Quit playing the "religious zealot" in the form of a scientist. It's quite stupid to watch.

Now then William, did you know this? No. You don't even know that the bible doesn't separate man from the ecosystem. It simply states he is the only organism within his ecosystem that has complete power over his decisions over and with instinct due to choice. Man may have been cast out from Eden (I'm guessing this is what you mean by separate from Earth's eco system) but Earth, Eden, Human, Angels, all are a part of each other according to the bible. All are a part of God as well. The only difference between man and animals according to the bible is that no animal has the amount of control over choice of their actions as man (AKA freewill). When it comes to science, if you deny this is true of Earth you are a fool. This seems to be inconsistent with "biological proof" that all beings on this planet are "equal" in some way evolved to their environment. Man somehow evovled to be able to fight against instinct. Instinct is there, but we can choose to go against it.

And the rest of you: Religion does not have any statments in it that contradict science. Let me say that again: Science does not compete with religion, religion does not obstruct science. They just are. It's not one or the other. Should I say it again?


By captainBOB on 1/15/2010 12:25:12 AM , Rating: 3
Wow. What a massive wall of text....

Opening random_text_wall.txt
quote:
Now then William, did you know this? No. You don't even know that the bible doesn't separate man from the ecosystem. It simply states he is the only organism within his ecosystem that has complete power over his decisions over and with instinct due to choice. Man may have been cast out from Eden (I'm guessing this is what you mean by separate from Earth's eco system) but Earth, Eden, Human, Angels, all are a part of each other according to the bible. All are a part of God as well. The only difference between man and animals according to the bible is that no animal has the amount of control over choice of their actions as man (AKA freewill). When it comes to science, if you deny this is true of Earth you are a fool. This seems to be inconsistent with "biological proof" that all beings on this planet are "equal" in some way evolved to their environment. Man somehow evovled to be able to fight against instinct. Instinct is there, but we can choose to go against it.

if(ideas <0){
System.out.println (random_text_wall.txt) }
elseif {
for(i=0; i<1; i++){
System.out.println(lololololololol)
}


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/15/2010 2:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was a CATHOLIC scientist, who was part of some of the FIRST movements into science from any organized group. Catholicism lead the scientific research front.


This was because these people started to doubt what the pope of the church was saying and started to doubt the bible texts . But which scientist was it ?
You mean Giordano Bruno ? Who was burned at the stake by his own catholic church ? Galileo Galilei was convited to house arrest because he was to radical ? Or you mean Isaac Newton who was an opponent. If he would have livd in Rome at the time he would have had the same faith or worse as Galilei.

quote:
Quit playing the "religious zealot" in the form of a scientist. It's quite stupid to watch.


Heliocentrism has always been nonsense.
The point is , every philosopher questions what his senses provide him/her. A philosopher dares to doubt what is truth to others. I am a philosopher. I cannot prove god does not exist nor can i confirm god exists. Thus i am being honest in saying because i cannot rule it out, i will always keep the option open how unlikely it may be. The same goes for the mysteries of the universe. Of physics. Everything. But i do not feel discomfort because of these uncertainties. On the contrary, i feel there is much to learn. And to prove. This is something the catholic church always has fought against. When there is prove that undermines the catholic dogma, that prove that is no more then knowledge is eradicated. But you and your dogma confine you and every other person if you had the chance to this limited few that you possess.

quote:
Now then William, did you know this? No. You don't even know that the bible doesn't separate man from the ecosystem. It simply states he is the only organism within his ecosystem that has complete power over his decisions over and with instinct due to choice. Man may have been cast out from Eden (I'm guessing this is what you mean by separate from Earth's eco system) but Earth, Eden, Human, Angels, all are a part of each other according to the bible. All are a part of God as well.


You really fail to see the bigger picture don't you ?
It has nothing to do with that we are special in the sense that we control our faith. It has every thing to do with the weakness humans possess. Instead of looking at what you do wrong you blame others. Take some responsibility for once for your own actions. And do not bring that "gods ways are mysterious " or " that the devil made you do it " to this conversion. If religion makes you feel comfortable, go right ahead. But do not force it upon others or (ab)use it to shove of your own responsibility. Anyway, we are part of an ecosystem. We eat and we get eaten. It may not be lions or wolfs. Even though we have evolved to be much more technological advanced(which is an evolution of mankind on it's own), we are still part of it.

quote:
The only difference between man and animals according to the bible is that no animal has the amount of control over choice of their actions as man (AKA freewill). When it comes to science, if you deny this is true of Earth you are a fool.


You state i am a fool, yet you bring up angels ?
Anyway, you so proudly bring up mans free will yet you are eager to blame some evil entity made you do it. Or that "god did it in his wisdom". Free will comes at a price, responsibility. And that free will seems to be nothing special. Go look at an octopus. Although i am sure you will find it a devilish creature...

quote:
This seems to be inconsistent with "biological proof" that all beings on this planet are "equal" in some way evolved to their environment. Man somehow evovled to be able to fight against instinct. Instinct is there, but we can choose to go against it.


You do not fight your instinct. i know this for a fact when reading your post and the choice of your words.

quote:
Religion does not have any statments in it that contradict science. Let me say that again: Science does not compete with religion, religion does not obstruct science.


Afcourse your right, all those people with healing knowledge where truly witches. All those libraries where not burned because those libraries contained evidence that the church was lying... It is the same with the Islam in some countries. Although Muhammad preached that people should learn and educated themselves to come closer to god (which is in essence what Jesus also seemed to have preached) and that men and women are alike and only one mean is meant for only one woman, people burn schoolbooks , practice polygamy and take liberties away. It was the same with the cristian/catholic church a few hunderd years ago.

Post scriptum, it is Gaatjes and not Gates.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/15/2010 4:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, i made some typing errors >> "few" = "view".

"one mean" = "one man"

Enjoy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skk9vfoUJXc&feature...


By William Gaatjes on 1/15/2010 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By postalbob on 1/18/2010 10:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I don't fight my instinct because I debate with you?

Bold comment from a "relgious zealot" Aethiest who bases his attack on someone's character rather than facts.

I bring up angels etc only in context with what you are arguing against. One must see both sides. You argued what the bible believes. Well then Aethiest, research religion and quote it properly, because you are wrong. Guess my religion jack ass. I dare you. You are a "religious zealost" in the form of a sceintist. Guess my profession? I may or may not have something too do with astro physics when it comes to the Haydron Particle Acccelerator. Dumbass.

I hear arguments on either side. You are biased, and took the assault against me and your "crusade" against religion rather than the topics at hand and the facts.

And also: Before you quote and blame religion as the cause of most "prominant" wars and crimes, maybe you should take your own theory and blame man. Considering Rome was known for war, they adopted it and were not EVER accepted for their actions by the catholic church or to be a part of the Catholic church, and no man was ever burned at the stake as a part of a certified Catholic action, and the Catholic league which did science was a PART of the Catholic church(which you would know if you read apologetics, anything accepted as a catholic exposition was documented, what you speak of was not documented) then you would know something. Instead clearly you blanket blame all religion, without pointing out a single tie in when it comes to the very "humanity" you suggest exists.

Here's my tie-ins:

WWI. WII. North Korea. Every modern war has been against religion. Every war post Roman days, and every country which was not conquered by an organized religion remains in more constant extreme war than a Christian one. For example: Russia, North Korea, China and Japan in WWII, but do you list these facts? No. And it is more than just a little bit idiotic.

Pull your head out of your ass. Seriously.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By postalbob on 1/18/2010 10:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
By the way:

The answer to the question I asked was: Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre in 1933. The Catholic Church was at the forefront of diving into physics, and pretty much the Belgian and Albert Einstein worked together, with Einstein going as far as stating Georges ideals were the most beautiful he'd ever heard.

We're talking a guy who despised the idea of God creating the universe being taught by religion what science was all about.

The big bang theory is just one of many which was conceived by the Catholic Science Team. And no, he was not excommunicated. You speak of people being burned, never, ever, in an official cree of the church. They did it like mindless drones. The church itself excommunicates people, that is all they have authority to do, and they have that right in their church. They do not excommunicate people for "defying" the church through scientific belief. It has never happened. Only religious beliefs.

If you can prove one incident where the church actually told people under the direct order of the pope to attack, I'd love to hear it. If you can name one person who was excommunicated for researching science (other than abortion, or embryonic stem cells, which do conflict with their religious beliefs, and even that I don't believe has happened.) then I would love to hear it.

Point out some facts, come on, I beg you dear Aethist, who is so pure and noble in searching out the truth.

You clearly are a white knight to our minds.

*rolls eyes* do you know how many physics majors share your mentality? In California even remotely implying you believe in God in class results in the ignorance you just displayed.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/19/2010 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately we cannot ask the late mr Georges Lemaître if he would think that the universe was only 6000 years old.

I am betting mr Georges Lemaître also understood that the bible should not be taken literally. This only makes sense or he could not have come up with the theories he presented. And what do you know, every honest atheist does the same. The universe started at some time. But what was the start ? We do not know. It can be something that we could see as a god. But not as described in the bible or any other holy book... The fun part is that this priest would have been burned just like Giordano Bruno has been if he had lived a few centuries before his actual time of life.

I am actually almost beginning to believe that you really have some astro physics job, but not quite :). Because this man seems a very important subject to you. Of all the scientists that existed and where religious you pick this person. But again , i ask you : DO you really think these people went into science because they where religious ? Afcourse not. There where many reasons. One of them is just an interest in science. Having family in science and so on... A lot of jobs and opportunities started at that time. Heike Kamerlingh Onnes for example was a very smart person. Although he did not gave Gilles Holst the credit for discovering superconduction( Heike Kamerlingh Onnes was one of the people who before the experiment was conducted, thought that electrical resistance could drop to zero), he was one of the first persons to realize how important tools and instruments where. And so he started a school for instrument makers. The students of this school build the tools and instruments... Because of these actions this man created a lot of possibilities for other people. I hope you understand what i am explaining. Another example is silicon valley in essence created by Frederick Terman. Afcourse it was primarily for inventing new weapon technologies against the USSR at that time. But that man created an enormous possibility for a lot of people. The fact is that a few key people make enormous changes in history and not religion. Religion is to some just to use as a tool(the visionaries for a lack of a better word) and some people just use religion as a excuse to justify their actions (the followers for a lack of a better word).

quote:
If you can name one person who was excommunicated for researching science (other than abortion, or embryonic stem cells, which do conflict with their religious beliefs


You just answered your own question...

In all honesty, i cannot decide directly on human embryonic stem cell research. I would first have to dig into the matter fully. However, if from cells that would never have been born, children's lives can be saved or they can be spared from a life of suffering and agonizing death, i am all for it. And for doing research, i know what the catholic church has done. Because of a few priests and monks with ideals a lot of people benefited. But most people where used and abused by the catholic church controlled by money and power hungering people. And afcourse some crazy people who actually where so paranoid that they wanted to read what they wanted to read...

quote:
You clearly are a white knight to our minds. *rolls eyes* do you know how many physics majors share your mentality? In California even remotely implying you believe in God in class results in the ignorance you just displayed.


I am lucky we are not having this conversation a few centuries ago or i would have been burned and you would have been the one starting the fire. If i was a believer in Jesus, i would never wanted to be associated with you.



RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By postalbob on 1/19/2010 8:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot and an ass.

You dive off topic and create new ones.

Biblically you dismissed all history. The question is not whether religion has affected man, nor whether man affects religion. The only thing you proceed to do is say this bullshit argument of being burned at the stake.

By the way: I'm aethiest, so I know your type.

I would continue to debate with you, but you already proved all I was saying:

You are a science zealot, weighing the equation with no "facts" whatsoever.

I left the open opportunity with stem cell research as a fluke, to see how dumb you were.

The answer?

NO ONE. That's right, no one has been punished or thrown out of the church for their beliefs in science. And like an OAF, you jumped right at it.

Nice. Clearly you are a genius. Now that I know you're a fool, there's no need to debate. Do your research kiddo, do your research. And whether or not the man who CREATED the big bang theory HAD BEEN quoted as saying the universe was 6,000 years old, trying to find a balance with religion, does not matter. He was searching for the answer, and found the answer that your punk ass scientists could not, and that you would not have.

Without beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, no one has drive. You accuse religion as an abnormally imbalanced drive.

Well guess the @%@^$ what?? It's a balance. All of it. And religion doesn't tip the scale. There's just as much flaw to science observation. Believing one can take three aspects of controlled observation and draw a conclusion which is absolute is childish. No physics majors agree with how hardcore you are, so I'm assuming that you are not a physics major. Good job. I instead assume you were the rebel aethiest in school, you almost definitely live in California given the brain dead calculations leaning on a left scale as well. A Virginian usually has both sides, you have one, so it has to be a well educated liberal state. California is the best bet. I know my kind.


By William Gaatjes on 1/20/2010 6:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an idiot and an ass. You dive off topic and create new ones.


I can not help that you are not willing to use your brain.
You absolutely do not have any arguments.
I do notice a pattern...

I cannot take you seriously any longer. Because you must be typing your text as a yoke. It must be a yoke, or the alternative is much worse for you, because then you are a yoke. A bad one :). I will finish this response so you can have your laugh and i can have mine :) :).

quote:
By the way: I'm aethiest, so I know your type.


You must have a split personality C.W. :)

quote:
would continue to debate with you, but you already proved all I was saying: You are a science zealot, weighing the equation with no "facts" whatsoever. I left the open opportunity with stem cell research as a fluke, to see how dumb you were. The answer? NO ONE. That's right, no one has been punished or thrown out of the church for their beliefs in science. And like an OAF, you jumped right at it.


You do not debate. You call names and use non existing arguments because you do not want to read.
With respect to stem cell research, i already admitted that i do not much about that matter. I know that it is important as i have written. Again , Fail...

quote:
Nice. Clearly you are a genius. Now that I know you're a fool, there's no need to debate. Do your research kiddo, do your research. And whether or not the man who CREATED the big bang theory HAD BEEN quoted as saying the universe was 6,000 years old, trying to find a balance with religion, does not matter. He was searching for the answer, and found the answer that your punk ass scientists could not, and that you would not have.


Having a rough day at work ? :)
Did you not find something special ? :)
Open your mind a little... It would make a change.

quote:
Without beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, no one has drive. You accuse religion as an abnormally imbalanced drive .


In many posts on other dates and subjects of dailytech i have stated that man always need hope. Some people have it natural, others need some help...

I accuse people with behaviour like you. Because again you do not read. And again you just give a response without thinking first.

quote:
Well guess the @%@^$ what?? It's a balance. All of it. And religion doesn't tip the scale. There's just as much flaw to science observation. Believing one can take three aspects of controlled observation and draw a conclusion which is absolute is childish. No physics majors agree with how hardcore you are, so I'm assuming that you are not a physics major. Good job.


I think you lost it...

quote:

I instead assume you were the rebel aethiest in school, you almost definitely live in California given the brain dead calculations leaning on a left scale as well. A Virginian usually has both sides, you have one, so it has to be a well educated liberal state. California is the best bet. I know my kind.


Amazing, you are so predictable. I did not respond on purpose to make you think that i was from the USA or even on the continent Amerika. Nor am i from California or Virginia. What am i to you now :) :) :)

Make me laugh a little more ,you yoke of your parents.



RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/19/2010 1:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't fight my instinct because I debate with you?


Why I would think such a thought about you not fighting your instinct ? Let me just use a few quotes...

quote:
Guess my religion jack ass

"relgious zealot" Aethiest

Dumbass.

Pull your head out of your ass. Seriously.

You are a "religious zealost" in the form of a sceintist

Bold comment from a "relgious zealot" Aethiest who bases his attack on someone's character rather than facts.



I find it amazing that I can judge not your character but your way of thinking just because of your choice of words. Does that say more about you then about me ? You do not fight your instinct because your choice of words. As your post has proven again. You call me names and you boast your example of a scientist who was also religious to prove your not existing point.

If you would not actually went into this fight,freeze or fright response , you could have actually read that I admit that i cannot proof the existence of god nor can I disprove it. Therefore i cannot rule out the existence of god how unlikely it may be. But in al honesty ,that is also not important for me. What is important for me is that people do not behave like a “drone” as yourself. For example Faraday was a religious man as, as you yourself already looked up many scientists are. Why should I dislike him or any person because that person is religious. No, what you fail to understand, is that al these scientists are scientist not because they are religious but because they want to understand and perhaps come closer to the answer, who or what is god. You have the flawed assumption that only because someone believes in god, that they can be a scientist. I find you very amusing indeed. I can explain you my point of view : I believe that our instincts and sometimes our emotions are a burden. To have full control over ourself is the first step to inner peace. The second step is to gain knowledge. Knowledge to understand why things happen and solve problems if there should occur problems. I find it amusing that I as an atheist seem to be wanting to be closer to ” god” then you . I am just human and my make mistakes, but I learn from them, improving myself. And one thing for sure is, is that I do not blindly believe a book that might contain history but is dramatized by poetics who in there very nature have this way of dramatizing stories, truly happened tails to fairy tails or just fairy tales. And that is what my point is as I have written. I do not mind if someone is religious, please do if it helps you. But do not force that religion on somebody else as you do your self. Because it is clear that I do not mind that you are religious and that it is very clear that you do mind that I am an atheist. What I mind is that people force their dogma upon me if they have their chance. While I just tell people to educate themselves and think for them selves.

But that’s my whole point in stead of reading the words, you just see what you want to see. The bible is therefore perfect for you. And it is afcourse obvious that it is not the bible itself or "god" that is the problem. It is people who have a certain view and connect this view to a religion which they force upon others. As you have proven again with this post. Start actually learning something and start thinking for yourself with the cognitive part of your brain. It may improve your life.

quote:
Bold comment from a "relgious zealot" Aethiest who bases his attack on someone's character rather than facts.


Where do you get this idea ? It seemes to me you have to do exactly what i did with myself. Learn to know yourself.

quote:

I bring up angels etc only in context with what you are arguing against. One must see both sides.


I have considered every option to the point that angels might have been extraterrestrials. But for now I have come to the conclusion that angels are the result of the imagination of people.

quote:

You argued what the bible believes.


Interesting choice of words… What the bible believes. The book it self believes ? Hahaha...

quote:

Well then Aethiest, research religion and quote it properly, because you are wrong. Guess my religion jack ass. I dare you. Guess my profession? I may or may not have something too do with astro physics when it comes to the Haydron Particle Acccelerator


I am guessing you are implying that i think you have the Islamic religion. You so aggressively defend the bible, i would think you are a cristian or catholic. But i would not be so ignorant. Surprise me ...
You know what the real fun part is ? I am just an ordinary even a under the average guy in some respect with a very powerful memory and an insatiable desire for gaining knowledge. Because of this desire i have learned what i know now and sometimes i outsmart people who actually have learned for varies disciplines. You just be an astro physicist at the collider...

quote:

I hear arguments on either side. You are biased, and took the assault against me and your "crusade" against religion rather than the topics at hand and the facts.

Biased, hahaha... If you would have actually read my post you would know that i am not biased at all to religion itself. But to the way it is expressed. Your response is a perfect example of what i am against at.

quote:

And also: Before you quote and blame religion as the cause of most "prominant" wars and crimes, maybe you should take your own theory and blame man.

That is exactly what i was talking about in my post. When something bad is done, it is man or the devil. When something good is done it is god and people must respect other people who bring th word of god. Take responsibility. At the beginning of Christianity the message could have very well been pure and good. After it got corrupted as every religion does, people started twisting a good message. I will let history speak for myself.

quote:

Considering Rome was known for war, they adopted it and were not EVER accepted for their actions by the catholic church or to be a part of the Catholic church, and no man was ever burned at the stake as a part of a certified Catholic action, and the Catholic league which did science was a PART of the Catholic church(which you would know if you read apologetics, anything accepted as a catholic exposition was documented, what you speak of was not documented) then you would know something.


History is not quite that simple.
The romans adopted the Christian message because they had seen that they where losing power. And Christianity was growing and growing. It seems pretty clear from history that the catholic institute has been a very aggressive institute.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/19/2010 1:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:


Here's my tie-ins:

WWI. WII. North Korea. Every modern war has been against religion.



WOEHAHAHAHA. HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHHAAAA
. Please. WW1 started because of the serbs where tired of the suppression of the Austro Hungarian empire. They used a mentally unstable person named Gavrilo Princip to murder Franz Ferdinand. Ironically, Franz Ferdinand wanted to create more of a democracy and wanted to loosen up the tight strangling grip of the Austro Hungarian empire. The serbs had the backing of the russians because the serbs where afraid for the Germans then called Prussians.

WW2 started because Hitler had lost it and was tired because Germany had to pay for the WW1. Germany was at a economical depression. But he was a very good at theatrical performances enchanting people. Hitler let Hjalmar Schacht start a international bank. The bis was to finance the upcoming war. That war was WW2.

The Korean war was a political war started at the end WW2 When the USSR and the USA divided Korea in two. But even that was not the entire story. Korea has been in varies wars for decades even before the 1900.

quote:

Every war post Roman days, and every country which was not conquered by an organized religion remains in more constant extreme war than a Christian one. For example: Russia, North Korea, China and Japan in WWII, but do you list these facts? No. And it is more than just a little bit idiotic.


That is a very big lie. It had nothing to do with politics, or the separation of church and state ?
Learn some history...

Oh, just one more thing :
Swearing is used by people who do not have anything usefull to say as an argument to prove their point… Which the post you wrote and i am replying on has proven again.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By postalbob on 1/19/2010 8:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
No swearing is used by people who respond to those who clearly insult others as a response.

If you take the "higher" route, while diving off topic, and act like an ass that's what you are.

The point of the wars comments:

NO Christian modern country has started a random war as powerful as one who sought to destroy it.

Sorry bud, the main mentality in ANY and ALL communist countries was to imprison or kill those of religious beliefs. The reason? As Hitler said in his speeches "Man must destroy God so that Germany can become a god"

You attacked my beliefs and named them. I can respond like a human and say FUCK you.

My reply to your insults is swear words. My reply to your comments is you are a science zealot.

All is meritted. You deserve the insults. And you are a science zealot. The drone mentality is followed even more with the destruction of religion (see my Hitler comment) in order to control thought processes. I'm sorry, you are just wrong. The only one of the two of us that is a drone, is the one making false statements.

If you noticed, I dislike the drone mentality too. You are following it to the letter. Again, you are indefinitely Californian. The "I'm high and mighty and never attack people" bullshit is a liberal thing.

I'm indepenadant Washingtonian, physics major, who will tell you 50 times, you are biased. Your arguments are unfair. Drones are drones. People are people. Your people have as much or more so of an effect. So get your head out of your ass. Following a religion, or following Hitler, or maybe the North Koreans? There's a reason why dictators destroy religion.

What you said about Catholic assaults is entirely untrue. And I advise you take history on it. Romans jumping on the christian band wagon, makes the person corrupt, not the religion they use. The person using communism for power makes the person corrupt. In theory communism is pretty good. The communism didn't make Hitler.

You aren't weighing shit. So sit down and take a dump, your shit stinks, and you are not "balanced" until you take away your "imbalance" against religion. You attacked me, I attack back, so fuck yourself.


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By William Gaatjes on 1/20/2010 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No swearing is used by people who respond to those who clearly insult others as a response.


The only insulting done here is on humanity, because you are an insult to humanity.

quote:
If you take the "higher" route, while diving off topic, and act like an ass that's what you are.


Again your useless opinion and not a fact in any way.

quote:
The point of the wars comments: NO Christian modern country has started a random war as powerful as one who sought to destroy it. Sorry bud, the main mentality in ANY and ALL communist countries was to imprison or kill those of religious beliefs.


What's you point goofy ?

quote:

The reason? As Hitler said in his speeches "Man must destroy God so that Germany can become a god" You attacked my beliefs and named them. I can respond like a human and say FUCK you.


Again now you call me Hitler :).
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Nothing to say to prove me wrong. Hot air, Hot air...

My reply to your insults is swear words. My reply to your comments is you are a science zealot.

Again empty words with out meaning. You waste precious air.

quote:
All is meritted. You deserve the insults. And you are a science zealot. The drone mentality is followed even more with the destruction of religion (see my Hitler comment) in order to control thought processes. I'm sorry, you are just wrong. The only one of the two of us that is a drone, is the one making false statements. If you noticed, I dislike the drone mentality too. You are following it to the letter. Again, you are indefinitely Californian. The "I'm high and mighty and never attack people" bullshit is a liberal thing.


You my angry friend, are a perfect drone. Without thinking you assume something and it is fact. Without doubting anything you know your word is THE word. Your thought is THE thought... Your attitude is exactly the reason what is wrong with humanity. You cannot use facts so you insult and harass people. I would not be surprise you have this attitude in your daily life as well... I feel bad for the people around you... And again, what do you have against California ? Oh, by the way, i am not from California or the U.S. I am tired of proving you wrong every time.

quote:
I'm indepenadant Washingtonian, physics major, who will tell you 50 times, you are biased. Your arguments are unfair. Drones are drones. People are people. Your people have as much or more so of an effect. So get your head out of your ass.


Well , i feel sad for the other people in Washington, did they not ask you to leave by now ?

quote:

Following a religion, or following Hitler, or maybe the North Koreans? There's a reason why dictators destroy religion.


Although it useless trying to give you some information... There will always be people who want nothing else then power. And if that person uses religion or promotes himself as a religion, it is the same. If you would really know your history you would understand that. But i am sad to notice over and over again that with you it is not a matter of being unable but a matter of not wanting too.

quote:

What you said about Catholic assaults is entirely untrue. And I advise you take history on it. Romans jumping on the christian band wagon, makes the person corrupt, not the religion they use. The person using communism for power makes the person corrupt. In theory communism is pretty good.


Your point, is that you accept finally that what you read in your bible may very well not be the original message because the people in power at that part of time used the bible to control people ? May i dare to think that you have grasped this ? I doubt it.

quote:

The communism didn't make Hitler. You aren't weighing shit. So sit down and take a dump, your shit stinks, and you are not "balanced" until you take away your "imbalance" against religion. You attacked me, I attack back, so fuck yourself.


Hypothetically speaking, if god would exist, the first steps on the path is to find inner peace and accept your strengths and weaknesses. By gaining knowledge you actually are able to do so and to face problems in life more easily and you do not have to make mistakes to learn from them. You can just deduce what would be the result of certain actions. But then again i am an atheist maybe with the inner peace of a true priest or would i say monk...

You are empty... It saddens me for you are not the only one...


By William Gaatjes on 1/20/2010 1:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
A nice song, wonderful singer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCuSo8q7HnI


By William Gaatjes on 1/24/2010 4:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
To think of modern day wars and when it comes close to religion...

The first gulf war was because Saddam Hussein needed money and attacked Kuwait. For years since 1982, Saddam Hussein was busy reconstructing the ancient city of Babylon.
If you would have said this, i might have given you some credit. Primary, it was oil , but this seems like a bit of trivial information, nevertheless as you can see, i am not biased. I look at everything from every perspective. For this is what i do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

If you would have


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By TSS on 1/16/2010 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the rest of you: Religion does not have any statments in it that contradict science. Let me say that again: Science does not compete with religion, religion does not obstruct science. They just are. It's not one or the other. Should I say it again?


The Dark Ages. Galileo. Nuff said.

Really, has the thought never crossed your mind that if you die, god will smite you for beliving in a book written by humans, rather then beliving in him?

Science is about explaining how everything works. Not why god made it work that way. And personally, once you look at all the wonderfull mechanisms science has uncovered, does one not relish in god's greatness, for it is he who created such mechanisms?

Science is not religion. Religion is based on dogma's, which discourage if not forbid thinking and discussion. Science is the exact opposite, where thinking and innovation is encouraged to learn more about the world around us.

As an athiëst, i have to say, the greatest insult a human could possibly inflict upon god, is to ignore and deny the biggest gift god has given us: our intellect and freedom of choice. Exactly what religion abolishes with dogma's and obedience.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki