Origin of humans on the Earth

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Saint, Dec 18, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Agree to all that

    Just to lazy to type it all out

    Also I try to feed religious minds simple explanations, down to the level of their thought processes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    Plenty of evidences prove that Jesus is true and He is GOD incarnate.
    Plenty of science proves that evolution is fake and that life must come from life, not from spontaneous chemical reaction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Do tell

    3 examples of evidence

    Thanks

    Ditto above

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    Origin of humans on the Earth

    origin of humans not on earth ?
    or
    no origin of humans on earth ... ?
    [applied philosophy of logic?]



    you need to back up your claim in this science forum



    making religious claims is ok in the religion thread area, however, you have posted in human science in a science forum
    you may wish to take a moment before you post to consider if your jumping too far off the subject terms of the thread.

     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Why are you asking for explanations, if you won't share all that "evidence"?
    I'm not much interested in the first claim, but I would like to see proof that evolution is fake.
    (Unless your definition of "fake" is the same as DJ Trump's.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Generally speaking, evolution doesn't take place fast enough to observe in the span of a human lifespan. It operates generation by generation.

    An exception is bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly and can be observed evolving things like antibiotic resistance in short time spans. The shorter an organism's reproductive cycle, the faster it can be expected to respond to environmental changes.

    This, BTW, is perhaps one (of several) reasons why human beings evolved intelligence. Cultural evolution makes it possible to adapt to new conditions far more rapidly than biological evolution makes possible.

    Regarding apes, apes are very well adapted for the lifestyles, habitats, foods and challenges that they have lived in for countless thousands of years. That's changing now, with the devastating intrusion of human beings into their environments. So one would expect that apes are experiencing huge selective pressures right now.

    Assuming that the great apes aren't driven to extinction, a very real possibility, we might expect to see some rather large changes in them over the next few thousand years, more or less.

    No and there almost certainly won't be, unless one is genetically engineered somehow. (Making the genomes compatible might be very difficult.) What we would expect to see are further developments and elaborations on the ape line.

    Don't think of evolution like the 'ascent of man' image below. There isn't a single line connecting apes and man, such that if an ape evolves, it will be pushed further in the direction of being a man.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Evolution is more like this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Humans and apes can be imagined as lying at the end of different branches. If they are induced to evolve by new selective pressures, then one would expect the branches that they occupy to extend and branch again into new variants. We wouldn't expect to see back-tracking and movement out along a different branch.
     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    If nobody knows how it happened, what kind of experiments would they perform?

    Biologists might hypothesize various paths that lead from single-celled protozoa to multicellular organisms with organs and tissues. Those pathways might suggest particular kinds of intermediate variants, part-way through the transformation. Meanwhile biologists are learning more about the first Ediacaran organisms in the Pre-cambrian period in which multicellular life first seems to have appeared. So they could test their hypotheses by trying to determine whether the Ediacaran observations match what they expected to see.
     
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    was there any connections between that and the predator chimpanzees that go monkey hunting ?

    i did wonder if this was a learned behavior from human hunters that had been learned and passed on by the chimpanzees as food shortages became compounded with human encroachment.
     
  12. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,752
    simple, chicken must come from chicken, not from dog.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,868
    Did you figure that out on your own? Well, very good, you said something that is correct!!!
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Slow clap for that pearl of wisdom

    When you get around to providing the 3 nuggets of evidence about Jesus and 3 science nuggets proving evolution is fake you are welcome to link where science has ever claimed dog has produced chicken

    I suspect it has been pronounced from a person who does not believe in evolution and from the idiotic remark appears to have no concept of how evolution works

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    simple is a good word
    obtuse is a better one
     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    Is evolution nothing more than a collection of genetic replication mistakes ?
     
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,868
    No. You have to include the environment.
     
    sideshowbob and sculptor like this.
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    amen
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Pretty much. The lucky ones move on to the next level of competition; the inept ones are sent home.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    Take it to the Religion forum. Here, you're posting in a science forum.

    This is the second time you've asserted that you have proof that science is faked.

    Present your evidence or withdraw your baseless claim.

    Dogs and chickens share a common ancestor.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,237
    I think what you're seeing as you dig in deeper are the careful qualifications and quantifications of error that scientists attach to their theories and results.

    There's a saying that for every equation you include in a popular science book, your sales will halve. A lot of people are afraid of mathematics.

    As for uncertainties, a lot of lay people don't understand what they are or why they are crucial in science. They consider scientific statements of quantified uncertainty as being equivalent to a statement that the scientists are just guessing, or similar. Of course creationists, climate deniers, anti-vaxers and so on stand ready to pounce on any statement of uncertainty. They all have a solid, unshakeable belief, formed in the absence of quantified evidence. Not understanding that a 95% confidence, for example, means we're pretty damn sure of the effect being explained, they act as if the 5% chance that we're wrong blows up the entire scientific edifice.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Ignoring the environmental half of the Darwinian two-step, even the generation of genetic variety is not merely, or "only", what one normally labels a "mistake".
    Hybridization is not usually thought of as a "mistake".
    Sexual recombination is not usually thought of as a "mistake".
    In a genetically varied population - a normal population, rather than an inbred one - it is usually impossible to label the varieties "mistakes". There is no "correct" version of the genome.

    Many organisms have genetically preserved and inherited capabilities of genetic alteration, excision, inclusion, duplication, mutation, exchange, even symbiosis, etc, - calling the results "mistakes" seems a bit odd, as the organism is set up to abet their occurrence.
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    you shouted duck !
    now you want chicken ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor and Michael 345 like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page