hey!.
introduction.
here is a quote some of you may recognize:.
hooberus: Just to specify. I simply dont see what common ancestery has to do with the mithocondrial eve. Can you elaborate on this?
The assumption of common ancestry (of humans and chimps) is frequently used by evolutionists as a baseline factor in their calculations for estimating mtDNA mutation rates. There are numerous other assumptions as well, however if you study my previous post and links you will find documention on this.
hey!.
introduction.
here is a quote some of you may recognize:.
From another thread here, on how evolutionists calculate such dates:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/46578/6/DNA-and-Mans-origin
To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates. Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern human mtDNAs.39
hey!.
introduction.
here is a quote some of you may recognize:.
Fourth, The reason scientists care about this is that one can use these observation together with statistics and genetics to get an idea about how man evolved. What we find is that the ME lived about 200'000 years ago, . . .
The problem with this is that such estimates generally are calculated based on the assumption of evolution to begin with- hence they are not independant evidence against the biblical timeline. They usually start with the assumption of human and chip common ancesty, and then based on this (as well as other evo assumptions) they generate an "age estimate", which internet evolutionists use as "evidence" against the Bible's account.
what more do the creationists want?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/.
on one of the galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young charles darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.. in many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer whod already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path.
It doesn't matter how much evidence we can show them, some people are just to thick to get (or accept) the fact of evolution. It's great to post this information for those with an open mind,
Didn't you know that virtualy all informed creationists and creationist organizations accept the "fact" of the type of the observed speciation mentioned in the OP article?
but it's a waste of time trying to debate the hard-core creationists with their closed little minds.
But according to the materialist evolutionists our thoughts are the pre-determined products of brain chemistry responding (according to the laws of chemistry) to external stimuli. Hence, we have no free-will to open our minds any more than the atheists do. As the prominent materialist evolutionist Provine said:
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
what more do the creationists want?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/.
on one of the galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young charles darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.. in many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer whod already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path.
What more do the creationists want?
"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will ‘floor’ creation apologists with examples of ‘new species forming’ in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation . . . ." http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists
ok. (taking deep breath) i am finally at that point in my recovery where i am ready to look at evolution as more than a loose theory which is clearly disprovable by the fact that all the bones proving it could be in a coffin.
or, um, some illustration like that.. i feel like first i have to "unlearn" the jw teaching of evolution to learn what "real" evolution is.
then, learn about that and then see how i feel.
Here is a relatively easy to understand book that demonstrates, from prominent evolutionary literature, a type of "evolution" (devolution).
Genetic entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome
"Dr. Sanford’s popular book explores the limitations of evolution’s primary axiom. This axiom is the evolutionary change (i.e., common descent) is accomplished by a combination of natural selection and random mutations. Using modern genetics research, the former Cornell University scientist provides several challenges to this axiom. Organisms, including humans, are declining in health, not evolving to more advanced stages of evolution. This newest edition contains the addition of a glossary, index, and author’s notes."
available from www.creationresearch.org
good to see all the thread on jesus recently :).
10 "you are my witnesses," declares the lord, .
"and my servant whom i have chosen, .
h
hooberus,
I know enough that there are many Trinitarians who say (believe) like you.
But my opinion is that it is not the correct Trinity doctrine.
And what the Watch Tower society is attacking is the Trinity doctrine which people like you believe.
Only sometimes does the WT Society correctly present the orthodox Trinity doctrine. Often what they present it as being is "three Gods in one person" rather than the correct "one God in three persons". After setting up their straw man, they then point to verses that teach only one God, and/or verses that show that the Fatrher and Son as distict persons, and then claim that these are somehow inconsistent with orthodox trinitarianism (which they aren't). Though of course they are inconsistent with the false "three Gods in one person" strawman.
good to see all the thread on jesus recently :).
10 "you are my witnesses," declares the lord, .
"and my servant whom i have chosen, .
It is the true Trinity doctrine that Jesus is not Jehovah.
Says who?
I am a Trinitarian. Trinitarian books affirm that all three persons are Jehovah.
formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.
) complexity defined specifically and 2.
) complexity defined specifically and 2.
Yeah, but he ignored everything that was said.
I showed that even if the designer themself must be included under the the ID definition of "complexity" [which I disagree], that the fact remains that the design statement in the O.P. still does not require an infinite regression of designers.
Furthermore, I demonstrated that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the argument for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?
formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.
) complexity defined specifically and 2.
) complexity defined specifically and 2.
By your reasoning, could you deny this scenario: We were created by an intelligent race of aliens who pop in and out of new universes across the multiverse, so they aren't tied to starting points in time like the Big Bang. As far as they tell us, they have always been like the quantum foam. They are the Greys. Stay Awake.
Midget, Do you accept the following brief reasoning: "the origin of the complexity from non-complexity of the computer that midget-sasquatch is typing on is best explained as the result of intelligent design, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".? Does it initself specifically deny your above strange scenario?
