Oldest primate fossil yet found. It is a tiny Chinese Archicebus fossil

[Developereo]

Most of these ideas such as a "multiverse" are artifacts of the mathematical model we use. The universe is provably strange enough (wave-particle experiments etc.)

Multiverse is a proposed explanation for various unexplained phenomena and unexplained terms in our equations. That does not constitute proof.

In that vein, some scientists also propose that the entire universe replicates itself instantly, down to the smallest quark, at every collapse of a wave function. If a non-physicist proposed such lunacy, he would be shipped off to the asylum but, since it comes from the ordained priesthood, we have to treat it respectfully.

 

[Juice]

There's hubris on both sides: religious folks assume that any rational explanation of the world is an attack on God's sovereignty, and scientific folks assume that such rational explanations constitute proof of God's nonexistence.

Neither viewpoint is accurate.

As Jesus said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

It's really not that hard to be religious and scientific at the same time. Plenty of people manage to do just fine. PS....the fact that this was found in China would put it out of direct lineage according to current understanding.



To be honest, I don't see why evolution is a challenge to God. Evolution only deals with the physical shape of our bodies, and if they happened to be shaped by natural forces on our planet, then so be it. Surely, humans didn't descend from outer space; we emerged out of the same processes that shaped the rest of life on Earth.

The part about "Man in God's image" refers to the soul and spiritual essence of man, not the physical form. Do people think that God is a giant humanoid and God made us as a "mini-me" version of Him?

Evolution, and science in general, has not even begun to tackle the question of the soul and spirituality in humans, so science really hasn't made any pronouncements on God -- regardless of what some people claim.

Not a true believer....but you are very right.....who are we to say how "God" developed life? Hubris is the problem.

 

[Juice]

Multiverse is a proposed explanation for various unexplained phenomena and unexplained terms in our equations. That does not constitute proof.

In that vein, some scientists also propose that the entire universe replicates itself instantly, down to the smallest quark, at every collapse of a wave function. If a non-physicist proposed such lunacy, he would be shipped off to the asylum but, since it comes from the ordained priesthood, we have to treat it respectfully.

My point being....artifacts. (unexplained quirks of the model....not reality)

 

[Awesome]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you read the dover trial in detail you can tell that the school's intent WAS to peddle creationism as ID.

ID is not creationism.

Its acceptance that complex organisms's complex organs all came into being in one go. The problem with ID proponents has been that they are always seen as Christian fundos. If it had the backing of scientists who would back it without regard to religion, they would have argued it better.

 

[Dubious]

They used to do that in early years of the 20th century.Before the developments in the field of genetics.You are supposed to be geneticist.And the field of genetics is the biggest contributor to the Evolutionary study.So yes I was a bit surprised.

Yes basic on surface genetics can be interpreted really crazily....

I did,.and I don't know what are you implying.Are you implying they are not connected at all.

Eukaryotic Cell vs Prokaryotic Cell - Difference and Comparison | Diffen Evolution in small scale is acceptable and normal day to day thing...BUT evolution soo high that it jumps species is a phenomena that can only be theorized due to many concepts!

Genome Packaging in Prokaryotes | Learn Science at Scitable
Hope this helps,

Most eukaryotic DNA codes for nothing.
Interspersed throughout the genome are various repeated sequences that are not
transcribed.
Even within genes there are sequences that are not translated.
Some of these nontranscribed regions are structural, such as the telomeres; some
regulate gene expression; and some have no known use.
The presence of so much noncoding DNA is an enigma.

http://www.biology.ewu.edu/aHerr/Genetics/Bio310/Pages/ch21pges/LN14final.pdf
Hence, if some 95% is similar to that of an ape is not prove for anything as only 1.5% of the human GENOME does code or have meaning...

Exactly,That's all the more reason to teach them proper and well accepted scientific theories so that they could take the science one step forward.

teaching a theory as though it is the only thing available limits their capacity to think outside the box!

I don't understand what you mean here.Can you be more specific.

where you accused me of manipulating words I told you to google the definitions I provided...I did not manipulate a single one...copied and pasted it as it was provided from online...

Nevertheless he is welcome to contribute positively.

He would had he time...lolz

 

[Dubious]

the frequency of developments span thousands if not millions of years, how on earth will you simulate such a timeframe and millions of environmental markers tat change in the process. In other-words, natural selection needs to be studied and identified, not recreated in lab

ask this to those who support the theory...What we do know is:

a) mutation in the coding region is rare if it does happen 1 of the following occurs along with it:

i) the person dies
ii) the person has developmental problems or some medical problems which are not selective for evolution
iii) rarely the mutation is passed to the next generation because rarely the mutation occurs in the gametes or germ cell or is passable
iv) we have more than 1 DNA REPAIR MECHANISMS which activates to fix mutations
v) some can cause sterile offspring meaning that trait will not be passed
vi) Mutations which are favourable does not have REMARKABLE phenotypic affects...
and many more such issues
Examples of favourable mutations:

Lactose tolerance - why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria - at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.

Now, 1st step, mutation are rare, not all passed to next generation, some can be lethal ....taking into consideration all these thigns...

and what distinguishes us:

Humans are distinguished from other animals by a relatively larger brain with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes; enabling high levels of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving, culture through social learning, and other important mental capabilities which, combined with bipedal locomotion

and that homo sapiens only are known around 60,000 years ago....tell me what is the probability of such mutations to occur, and be passed without being lethal and producing a viable offspring? Tell me the probability! So far we do not even know how many yrs it will take for an ape to develop the brain we have through evolution, then the locomotion then the digestive system and our immune system and this is WHY for me as a geneticist it seems close to impossible to get everything organized in 50k yrs!

this post @Developereo

 

[Dubious]

A "corporate memo" is a communication (instructions) from one office to another. The encoder gene is one of the "real" genes whose function is known (2%) as opposed to the so-called junk DNA.

ahh Exons ok...

Anyway, there is no point belaboring the issue. My point was that a lot of evolutionary progression of physical characteristics involves tiny changes in existing structures rather than brand new structures: e.g. a longer tail, bigger teeth, more rods or cones, etc.

yes agreed, read my post before this 1 I

The mutation doesn't cause a loop. That's the whole point with a causality loop: A causes B which causes A, so cause and effect are not clearly defined. Such loops are possible, at least in theory.

we have positive feedback loops running in various systems of life...

Anyway, like I wrote, this is all highly speculative so no point dwelling on it.

I dont mind having something to munch on better than reading some bashing left and right without proof!

 

[Dubious]

It's really not that hard to be religious and scientific at the same time. Plenty of people manage to do just fine.

My very point hence I do feel offended being called a creationist actually had to look that word up coz I didnt know it existed till I came to this thread and was accused of being one

To be honest, I don't see why evolution is a challenge to God. Evolution only deals with the physical shape of our bodies, and if they happened to be shaped by natural forces on our planet, then so be it. Surely, humans didn't descend from outer space; we emerged out of the same processes that shaped the rest of life on Earth.

Hence, I said present the proof...Because as of current knowledge we are no where near explaining the how why...only some of the what MAY HAVE happened...but even that stays a theory unless we put forward the how and why...

The part about "Man in God's image" refers to the soul and spiritual essence of man, not the physical form. Do people think that God is a giant humanoid and God made us as a "mini-me" version of Him?

I HAVE actually heard of people saying such thing

Evolution, and science in general, has not even begun to tackle the question of the soul and spirituality in humans, so science really hasn't made any pronouncements on God -- regardless of what some people claim.

fair enough

 

[Audio]

I don't know about creationists, but a scientist would say "show me proof of a multiverse before I waste time explaining it".

Popular science TV shows and sensationalist pseudo-science rags do not constitute proof.

You claim proof from pseudo science rags and talk about omnipotent being a few pages back.
Quite rich.
I wonder what proof does that theory have? Power hungry old men writing commendments two thousand years ago. Again you display intellectual dishonesty just like in any other thread, although i hoped to get a constructive opinion out of you since you claimed to be a physicist. Please, do better in your next post. If you can have theorycraft on the omnipotent being with a hard on for complex designs, you surely can indulge us with this.

Anyhow what could be taken as the first real hard evidence of the multiverse was uncovered recently, you can call it pseudo science with half a billion € budget tag.

Granted above is Daily Fail picture which pumps up every story in order to sell more, but:

Planck's new image of the CMB suggests that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink, raising the possibility that the fabric of the cosmos, on the largest scales of the observable Universe, might be more complex than we think.

"The CMB is a portrait of the young Universe, and the picture delivered by Planck is so precise that we can use it to scrutinise in painstaking detail all possible models for the origin and evolution of the cosmos," comments Jan Tauber, Planck Project Scientist at ESA. "After this close examination, the standard model of cosmology is still standing tall, but at the same time evidence of anomalous features in the CMB is more serious than previously thought, suggesting that something fundamental may be missing from the standard framework," he adds.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51551

 

[Audio]

This shows, whenever the whole mechanism came into being, it came into being all at once.

How do you know you are not looking at it in a point in time when it still has both mutations?

I believe evolution species and natural selection may be going on. But not at the level that Tyrannosaurus Rex of yesterday has evolved into my pet parrot today. Some will occur over a period of time through various mating patterns, maybe over time we'll all become white or all become black.

You sure? If you expose your parrot to ever changing environmental, feeding conditions over a span of a few million years, you think he would still be a parrot?

Also proponents of natural selection never explained how the first life came into being? All life consists of building blocks known as proteins, newer proteins, are also built by proteins. It begs the question where did the first protein come from?

Going further down, they are made of amino acids.

Going further down, amino acids base elements would be nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and Carbon. Today in a controlled lab environment with all the right conditions, scientists are unable to recreate a protein with nothing but these base elements. Yes they can create proteins, using some other proteins, but never just from base elements. They reason is simple, genetic material is required in its creation. At the very least - the first protein ever, definitely came into existence all at once.

A new experiment simulating conditions in deep space reveals that the complex building blocks of life could have been created on icy interplanetary dust and then carried to Earth, jump-starting life.

Evidence that comets could have seeded life on Earth

Furthermore, there were also experiments done with conditions when comets hits the surface of the water here on Earth. Heat and pressure from the resulting explosion made basic proteins (the ones that cannot evolve life on their own) bond into more complex which were recognized as valid building blocks.

In one set of experiments, they used gas guns to simulate the enormous temperatures and powerful shock waves that amino acids in comets would experience on upon entering Earth’s atmosphere. The gas guns, devices that weigh thousands of pounds, hit objects with high-pressure blasts of gas moving at supersonic speeds. They shot the gas at capsules filled with amino acids, water and other materials.

The amino acids did not break down due to the heat and shock of the simulated crash. Indeed, they began forming the so-called “peptide bonds” that link amino acids together into proteins. The pressure from the impact of the crash apparently offset the intense heat and also supplied the energy needed to create the peptides, she explained. In other experiments, Blank’s team used sophisticated computer models to simulate conditions as comets collided with Earth.

New evidence that comets deposited building blocks of life on primordial Earth

 

[Developereo]

and that homo sapiens only are known around 60,000 years ago....tell me what is the probability of such mutations to occur, and be passed without being lethal and producing a viable offspring? Tell me the probability! So far we do not even know how many yrs it will take for an ape to develop the brain we have through evolution, then the locomotion then the digestive system and our immune system and this is WHY for me as a geneticist it seems close to impossible to get everything organized in 50k yrs!

To be fair, Homo Erectus had many of these features around 1.7 mya. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, which probably shared a common ancestor both with us and HE, also had these features around 250 kya. HSN actually had a bigger average brain size than Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us).

So, many of these features have been around for a lot longer than 50 kya.

Hence, I said present the proof...Because as of current knowledge we are no where near explaining the how why...only some of the what MAY HAVE happened...but even that stays a theory unless we put forward the how and why...

That's fair. People should have the right to be skeptical.

I accept evolution because it provides the most compelling explanation for the available data. While it may be true that we lack a robust explanation of some aspects (e.g. speciation) at the DNA level, if the other evidence is strong enough, then I don't see that as a strong enough objection to throw out all of evolutionary theory. It just means that there is work to be done to uncover the genetic mechanisms.

You claim proof from pseudo science rags and talk about omnipotent being a few pages back.
Quite rich.

You do understand the difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim, don't you?

If not, there is nothing further to discuss.

And, no, your link is NOT proof of multiverses. Ask your local physicist to explain to you.

Hint: We already knew that the Big Bang was not uniform. There was clumping which led to the formation of stars and galaxies. All this data is showing is more evidence of non-uniformity. We managed to explain the other anomalies without invoking a bumping cars scenario of multiverses. Why conjure them up in this case?

 

[Audio]

You do understand the difference between a religious claim and a scientific claim, don't you?

If not, there is nothing further to discuss.

When it is coming from you, no, not really, i don't understand it. All i see is attempts of me showing proof while you get to get away with none.

And, no, your link is NOT proof of multiverses. Ask your local physicist to explain to you.

I know it is not the definitive proof, the word "could" in my quote should be indicative of that.

Hint: We already knew that the Big Bang was not uniform. There was clumping which led to the formation of stars and galaxies. All this data is showing is more evidence of non-uniformity. We managed to explain the other anomalies without invoking a bumping cars scenario of multiverses. Why conjure them up in this case?

Well, until an explanation for the anomalies which were presented above doesn't show itself, the pull of the other universe is a valid theory. The quote above from the ESA team of Planck observatory scientists confirms that there are new missing bits we don't quite understand yet in addition to the already established stuff we don't understand like dark matter, energy. But so far, those anomalies can only be explained with a multiverse pull. Though this is not saying they won't be explained in some other way in the future....

 

[Developereo]

All i see is attempts of me showing proof while you get to get away with none.

It's clear that you do NOT understand the difference between a religious claim and a scientific one.

I know it is not the definitive proof, the word "could" in my quote should be indicative of that.

So, in other words, there is NO proof.

 

[Azazel]

Yes basic on surface genetics can be interpreted really crazily....

Don't be so vague.Post what you think.

Eukaryotic Cell vs Prokaryotic Cell - Difference and Comparison | Diffen Evolution in small scale is acceptable and normal day to day thing...BUT evolution soo high that it jumps species is a phenomena that can only be theorized due to many concepts!

You have absolutely no evidence to back that claim.Biologists on the other almost certain that eukaryotes evolved from procaryotes because they all share

1. microtubules (composed of the protein tubulin) and actin molecules-cytoskeleton for support or intracellular transport.-flagella (or cilia)

2. DNA in chromosomes (intertwined with histone protein)

3. membrane-bound organelles.


Just because there is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes and procaryote in the overall scheme of cell evolution,It doesn't mean its a result of the designer.Its just another mystery that is just waiting to be unraveled.

http://www.biology.ewu.edu/aHerr/Genetics/Bio310/Pages/ch21pges/LN14final.pdf
Hence, if some 95% is similar to that of an ape is not prove for anything as only 1.5% of the human GENOME does code or have meaning...

First let me ask why you didn't respond to my post regarding Chromosomal fusion that indicates humans did have an ape ancestor.And let me remind you that Humans and great apes have around 98% of common protein encoding DNA.Humans and Chimps share around 98% of protein encoding DNA.
Comparing Chimp, Human DNA

These findings add to growing body evidence that non-protein-coding regions that some scientists have labeled "junk DNA" are not junk after all.In fact, there have been many evidence suggesting its the dissimilarity of non-protein-coding DNA is the main cause of the difference between Humans and apes.

It has been frequently observed that identical genes in Humans and chimps often behave in different ways. A gene's activity, or an expression, can be turned up or down like the volume on a radio. So the same gene can be turned up high in humans, but very low in chimps.The same genes are expressed in the same brain regions in human, chimp and gorilla, but in different amounts. Thousands of differences like these affect brain development and function, and help explain why the human brain is larger and smarter.
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Why humans are brainier than chimps
This is clear indication of the importance of so called junk DNA.

.

teaching a theory as though it is the only thing available limits their capacity to think outside the box!

You can't teach pseudo sciences as theories in classrooms as theories.That is exactly what Creationism/Intelligent Design is.

where you accused me of manipulating words I told you to google the definitions I provided...I did not manipulate a single one...copied and pasted it as it was provided from online...

You have taken words used it out of context.That is intellectual dishonesty.When creationist says Evolution is just a theory not a fact,they are conveniently ignoring the fact that the scientific definition of the word "theory" is very different from the colloquial sense of the word. In the vernacular, "theory" can refer to guesswork, a simple conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts and need not be framed for making testable predictions..In fact in science stating a theory is more important than stating fact.

 

[Audio]

It's clear that you do NOT understand the difference between a religious claim and a scientific one.

Facepalm....why so defensive?

So, in other words, there is NO proof.

lol, it's the only possibility we know so far that could explain the anomalies. But that just doesn't go well with your dogmatic view of the omnipotent creature playing with Lego's just one time is it?

Anyhow, this is the theory people like Stephen Hawking adhere to, not my whim of fancy. The clues about it are mounting since 2010.

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html#jCp

As for proof, please, even the standard model is not proven beyond any doubt and it is the cornerstone of what is taught. With questions at this scale getting proof isn't so easy as opening a chapter in religious scripture.