Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)
- Thread starter omit
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Moderator
- #13,402
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species in an instant. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population, or with a population that it shares common ancestor with. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Each population (or new species) still has a common ancestor though.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Moderator
- #13,404
They did. As I said, this is common scientific knowledge; Which bit do you dispute?
I'll ask again. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
Well?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.htmlHow can one species "turn into" another?
One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html
At least credit the source of your information.
- Moderator
- #13,406
I'm not writing an essay. You said "don't expect an answer." I gave you an answer. Once again common scientific knowledge. Anytime you'd like to comment on that answer, feel free.
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,407
I like how you only ever respond to half of my original post.
I'm content to wait though. I mean it's only recently that evidence has come up to show that
Y Adam and mitochondrial eve lived about the same time.
Your theories keep changing depending on who is telling the story. Again, I'll wait to see the next episode of your truth being changed or updated or for new evidence to change the narrative.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You have quoted word for word twice in 3 posts without even crediting the source. You have not contributed anything other than providing a reference, worse than that you are passing it off as your own work.
- Moderator
- #13,409
What evidence is that?
My theories? As I said this is common scientific knowledge and I've been very consistent in presenting that information to claims of biblical inerrancy and/or biblical accuracy.
I'll ask again. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,410
Common scientific knowledge keeps changing though!
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2...-may-have-lived-around-same-time-study-shows/
- Moderator
- #13,411
I'm not passing it off as my own work at all. I didn't come up with the original research / discoveries that are now regarded as common scientific knowledge. I am presenting to you and spartanwa common scientific knowledge, as you both are clearly deficient in this area.
Not that dissimilar to quoting from the Bible or the Quran is it. Common religious knowledge vs. common scientific knowledge.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #13,412
Yeah and...? That's science. As more evidence comes to hand, scientific theories are altered. Hopefully we get close to what actually happened each time this occurs.
How does this change anything I've presented so far?
I'll ask again. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,413
If you can't see the point I am making, you are most definitely not the intelligentsia that you portray yourself to be.
- Moderator
- #13,414
Scientific theories are updated as more evidence emerges and/or technology progresses? That's surely your point.
How does this change anything I've presented so far?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Common scientific knowledge or not you have quoted word for word and didn't so much as acknowledge your source. You didn't even place it in quotes.
WORD FOR WORD.
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,416
Your established scientific fact and truth is open to change.
- Moderator
- #13,417
So what. I'm not writing an original essay or presenting original research. I'm presenting to you very well known common scientific knowledge that I happen to very much agree with.
I'm keeping it short and to the point, so that you can directly comment on that information rather than getting you to read long articles that may well be beyond you.
Now if you'd like to dispute any of the actual material, WORD FOR WORD, that I've presented here, feel free. I'm waiting.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #13,418
No kidding.Of course it is. I've always said that.
As I said, that's science. As more evidence comes to hand, scientific theories are altered. Hopefully we get closer to what actually happened each time this occurs.
Scientific theories are updated as more evidence emerges and/or technology progresses.
How does this change anything I've presented so far?
What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
I take it by your silence in answering this question that you agree that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth.
Bennett.
Your training, Matrix
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2017
Essendon Player Sponsor 2016
Essendon Player Sponsor 2014
Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
- Banned
- #13,419
Of course it is. I've always said that.
As I said, that's science. As more evidence comes to hand, scientific theories are altered. Hopefully we get closer to what actually happened each time this occurs.
Scientific theories are updated as more evidence emerges and/or technology progresses.
How does this change anything I've presented so far?
What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
I take it by your silence in answering this question that you agree that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth.
So how can you claim to espouse truth and superior knowledge when that very same can change completely tomorrow?
I also gave you my response to your continued homing in on a single point as to try to gain some kind of win. Do you need me to type it out again for you?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
OK, you're not interested in educating anybody, just presenting what suits your argument.
Which part of what you have stated voids Adam and Eve?
- Moderator
- #13,421
I don't claim to espouse truth. I claim that on the basis of the available scientific evidence the consensus of scientific opinion is such.
The very first comment I made (that you commented on in this little exchange) was as follows:
"There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."
Do you have any alternative scientific evidence that this is not in fact true? If so, present it here.
Some kind of win?
I've asked you repeatedly to address the original comment to which you first responded. You have repeatedly knocked back the opportunity to do so.
So once again. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
Note the similarity of my question to my original comment to which you first responded. Is there no scientific evidence for a first man and first woman that you can present?
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #13,422
I'm educating you in common scientific knowledge which is backed up by scientific evidence such as DNA studies. If you want to present alternative scientific evidence that indicates an original pair of first and only humans on earth, feel free.
Go back and read what I've said about genetics and DNA. That was to educate you, not to present new and original material on genetics. What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
Last edited:
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,231
- 24,281
- AFL Club
- Sydney
So your argument is that I can't provide evidence of Adam & Eve therefore Adam & Eve are a no show?
- Moderator
- #13,425
Once again. The fossil and genetic evidence suggests that modern homo sapiens sapiens (our species) evolved from archaic home sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Possibly from a group of homo rhodesiensis separated geographically from most other of the other homo sapiens alive at the time. Of course modern homo sapiens sapiens just happens to be the only surviving species or sub-species.
The female individual that all humans can trace their mitochondrial DNA was but one of what is believed to be several thousand contemporary females. All those other female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day. DNA studies show that these other females have living descendants today, but at least one of the line was a male. Male homo sapiens also existed at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, possibly up to 4,000-6,000 individuals.
DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population, about 200,000 years ago never dropped below tens of thousands and anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic homo-sapiens who continued to exist alongside modern homo-sapiens but eventually, died out.
Again this is accepted scientific knowledge backed up by nuclear DNA evidence. Feel free to present alternative scientific evidence that supports a first and only pair of homo sapiens on earth.
Last edited:
- Status
