[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

On what basis, besides using the bible to confirm the bible, are you drawing that conclusion? There is no reason to assume that there was "outside water" or that water deters C14 formation. The tropopause exists, for example, but does not prevent C14 formation. You are making assumptions based on a verse about "waters divided from waters" and you really have no scientific basis to say that water, wherever it is, prevents C14 from forming.

So, let me know where C14 is created? The extremely less C14 ratio in specimens by itself is an evidence that there were no radiations blocked by water surrounding the earth stopping all creation of C14 (not the other way round of adding millions of years).

Because Neanderthal ancestors left Africa and as waves of hominids left Africa during the African migrations, they encountered Neanderthals for the first time outside of Africa.

Out of Africa is a disproved theory based on recent genetic advancements (just in the past 2 years). The prime assumption of "Out of Africa" theory is that "Neanderthal" were extinct before the migration from Africa. However, there are bones of homosapians predating all about 100000 years found in China. Further, my community have a genetic marker not found in any of the other communities in India but only found in a particular tribe of West Africa (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385173/ ) which further proves "Out of Africa of AMH" to be terribly wrong.

Fortunately for us we have other measures to determine the age of things besides radiocarbon dating. Counting the rings of trees or layers of ice created by regular thaw and freeze, for example, allows us to calibrate radioactive dating methods correctly to arrive at an accurate date.

Forgive my cynicism, but it is 2013 and we really need to stop claiming that carbon dating isn't calibrated correctly. We have had it fugured out for a while.

There is absolutely no tree that is "proved" older just by dating the rings without the assumption based on nearly lake. There are trees older than 5000 years but wait, do you think it is based on tree rings? No. but based on nearby lakes. The same is true for fossils as well. Go and do your research and you will find all are based on either carbon dating and/or using lakes nearby. Without this, you do not have any continuity for any fossil found for any tree.

For lakes, carbon dating pollen will anyway give a wrong result. There is no known varves that have continuous dating far back into past of 20000 years. Assuming a varve is around 1 inch, a continuous varve history for such a distant date in past gives, 1/2 a kilometer which none of the lakes have. They, drill and take 1m or 10m specimen from below. Then, on the first varve, they do carbon dating and then calculate years.

Using a flawed method again and again to calibrate does not give you correct values.

 

[felix]

Actually, DNA change is a defining characteristic of evolution, so I am not sure what your point is other than to create your own definition of what constitutes evolution and then declare that this cannot occur, despite a great deal of evidence that it can.

'Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.'

Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

Genetic variations is a layer used for evolutionary theory. Genetic variations does not prove evolution. Both are very different.

The key to Evolutionary theory is "natural selection" without which the theory falls by itself. The central to "natural selection" is "survival of the fittest". Are you telling me, that starting from haplogroup A (Africans) are "less evolved" than haplogroup R (Europeans) more evolved than their African ancestors based on "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" of evolution?

 

[Grazer]

Just to add to the discussion re: what evolution is & isn't along with the different definitions;

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49387

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44862

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Adam]

The prime assumption of "Out of Africa" theory is that "Neanderthal" were extinct before the migration from Africa. .

And now I know that you aren't versed in anything you are trying to discuss.

Sir, please take your own advice and do some research before you post again.

 

[lordkalvan]

Genetic variations is a layer used for evolutionary theory. Genetic variations does not prove evolution. Both are very different.

Genetic variation is basic to the theory of evolutionary change. Its causes are at least three-fold: mutations (your DNA most likely includes several score mutations), gene flow amongst different populations and sexual combination (you are different from your parents, your siblings are different from you). However, genetic variation is not the 'proof' of that theory, this comes from a range of other evidence in different lines of research referred to previously.

The key to Evolutionary theory is "natural selection" without which the theory falls by itself. The central to "natural selection" is "survival of the fittest".

Which, in the context of evolutionary theory, simply means differential reproductive success, in other words certain traits are oreserved through successful breeding and certain traits are lost through failure to breed.

Are you telling me, that starting from haplogroup A (Africans) are "less evolved" than haplogroup R (Europeans) more evolved than their African ancestors based on "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" of evolution?

Where on Earth did you get the idea that this is what either I or evolutionary theory proposes?

 

[felix]

And now I know that you aren't versed in anything you are trying to discuss.

Sir, please take your own advice and do some research before you post again.

Really?

This is reported on year 2007:
The new data support the single origin, or "out of Africa" theory for anatomically modern humans, which says that these early humans colonized the planet after spreading out of the continent some 50,000 years ago.
Ref: http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2007/07/070718-african-origin.html

This is reported on year 2012:
"These are complexities in the out-of-Africa story that certainly I would not have anticipated two or three years ago," said Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London and author of Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth.
Ref: http://news.nationalgeographic.com....rthals-science-paabo-dna-sex-breeding-humans/

 

[Grazer]

Educate me Felix, how does anything in that second article disprove or doubts evolution?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[felix]

Where on Earth did you get the idea that this is what either I or evolutionary theory proposes?

If evolution based on genetic variation continues from A haplogroup to R, which is of course because of natural selection and survival of fittest, then, haplogroup A is less evolved than haplogroup R.

So,

• Either evolution is not happening (or)
• Africans are less evolved because, natural selection found them to be less important and chose to evolve further into other haplogroups finally to R.

If Africans are not less evolved, then natural selection/survival of fittest is not happening, thus no evolution.

Simple undeniable proof of a European racist theory.

 

[felix]

Educate me Felix, how does anything in that second article disprove or doubts evolution?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

I think you didn't follow the discussion.

I did not say that for disproving evolution, but disproving "Out of Africa of AMH" theory which says, modern humans are solely from Africa.

Further evidence from China:

[video=youtube;KL1USVvPdow]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL1USVvPdow[/video]

 

[felix]

Adam/Grazer,

I think the wordings went wrong. What I had in mind was: The prime assumption of "Out of Africa" theory is that "Neanderthal" were not part of the AMH evolutionary line.

 

[lordkalvan]

If evolution based on genetic variation continues from A haplogroup to R, which is of course because of natural selection and survival of fittest, then, haplogroup A is less evolved than haplogroup R.

Don't be ridiculous. On what basis do you determine the value judgement 'less evolved than'? Are gorillas 'less evolved than' chimpanzees?

So,

• Either evolution is not happening (or)
• Africans are less evolved because, natural selection found them to be less important and chose to evolve further into other haplogroups finally to R.

If Africans are not less evolved, then natural selection/survival of fittest is not happening, thus no evolution.

And fallacious reasoning leads to faulty conclusions. Grant your premises for the sake of argument only: that 'Africans are not less evolved' is not evidence that evolution is not happening. On the other hand, the simple existence of different haplogroups would appear to be evidence that evolution does, indeed, happen.

Simple undeniable proof of a European racist theory.

Nope, only undeniable evidence of a gross misunderstanding on your part of evolutionary theory.

 

[felix]

Don't be ridiculous. On what basis do you determine the value judgement 'less evolved than'? Are gorillas 'less evolved than' chimpanzees?

You should have asked, Are humans 'less evolved than' bacterias?

And fallacious reasoning leads to faulty conclusions. Grant your premises for the sake of argument only: that 'Africans are not less evolved' is not evidence that evolution is not happening. On the other hand, the simple existence of different haplogroups would appear to be evidence that evolution does, indeed, happen.

You just said, Africans are less evolved in a decent way. Isn't it?

Nope, only undeniable evidence of a gross misunderstanding on your part of evolutionary theory.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. If evolution happens because of natural selection and survival of fittest, then the "natural selection" decided that Africans are not "fit" and moved on to evolve into more better "Europeans"? It's just pure racism. Did you look into the video which I posted in #109 ?
Let me know what "Evolution" did find, that "Africans" are not fit in proceeding to "naturally select" genes as soon as they moved out of Africa ?

So, what about a 100000+ year old homosapien found in China?

You should first stop being a racist by ditching "out of Africa" and learn to appreciate the scientific evidence for Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans (although I don't believe the evolution part, but it is evidence that the world was all equally populated as in the Bible before the flood).

 

[lordkalvan]

You should have asked, Are humans 'less evolved than' bacterias?

Why? You appear to be talking about Africans and Europeans?

You just said, Africans are less evolved in a decent way. Isn't it?

Nope, I granted your premise for the sake of argument. This does not mean that I regard it as valid.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. If evolution happens because of natural selection and survival of fittest, then the "natural selection" decided that Africans are not "fit" and moved on to evolve into more better "Europeans"? It's just pure racism. Did you look into the video which I posted in #109 ?

Your argument is, quite simply, nonsense because the 'facts' on which you base it do not carry the meaning you wish to assign to them.

Let me know what "Evolution" did find, that "Africans" are not fit in proceeding to "naturally select" genes as soon as they moved out of Africa ?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean?

So, what about a 100000+ year old homosapien found in China?

What about it?

You should first stop being a racist by ditching "out of Africa" and learn to appreciate the scientific evidence for Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans (although I don't believe the evolution part, but it is evidence that the world was all equally populated as in the Bible before the flood).

I would thank you to withdraw unwarranted accusations of racism against me. If you think the hypothesis you have cited is 'evidence that the world was all equally populated as in the Bible before the flood', I suggest you present some evidence to support the various claims in this assertion.

 

[felix]

Why? You appear to be talking about Africans and Europeans?

Because they are the extremes, one is less evolved (Africans) and the other is more evolved (Europeans) according to evolutionary theory.

Nope, I granted your premise for the sake of argument. This does not mean that I regard it as valid.

If you did not regard it as valid, then let me know if you consider Africans to be equally evolved as other humans according to evolutionary theory (provide evidence for it as well).

Your argument is, quite simply, nonsense because the 'facts' on which you base it do not carry the meaning you wish to assign to them.

Nope. It is your argument and the theory is racist.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean?

According to evolutionary theory + out of africa, Africans today are same as 100000 yrs back with a few gaps in haplogroups. However, European Haplogroups were very recent dating back only a few thousand years.
So, evolution found "natural selection" with "survival of fittest" and proceeded to evolve into Europeans while Africans remained as less evolved?

What about it?

What about it? According to "Out of Africa" theory, China is not supposed to be populated with AMHs around 100000+ years (date in video is actually more).

I would thank you to withdraw unwarranted accusations of racism against me. If you think the hypothesis you have cited is 'evidence that the world was all equally populated as in the Bible before the flood', I suggest you present some evidence to support the various claims in this assertion.

Evolutionary theory is a racist theory. So does people who support it. I am happy to "withdraw unwarranted accusations of racism" as long as you accept that Africans are "equally" evolved as Europeans and no "natural selection" took place to make Europeans better (although I don't believe in Evolution). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans is the evidence that is against "out of Africa" and Biblical equally populated position which you are refusing to accept.

 

[Grazer]

Evolution theory says Africans are less evolved than Europeans? Must have missed that in all my study. I thought evolution theory partly explained why they have different colour skin, doesn't say who's more evolved. If one wants to apply that conclusion then they can but the theory itself makes no such claims.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[lordkalvan]

Because they are the extremes, one is less evolved (Africans) and the other is more evolved (Europeans) according to evolutionary theory.

If you can find any paper on evolutionary theory which proposes that Africans are 'less evolved' and Europeans 'more evolved' you should fit it. Also, you need to define what you understand by and how you measure 'more evolved' and 'less evolved' as you are sing these terms as if they have a generally understood meaning. They don't.

If you did not regard it as valid, then let me know if you consider Africans to be equally evolved as other humans according to evolutionary theory (provide evidence for it as well).

Africans are Homo sapiens. There is no genetic barrier to any member of Homo sapiens breeding with any other member if Homo sapiens. Until you can describe what you mean by 'equally evolved' and how this term has any objective worth, all you are doing is assuming your conclusion by supposing that simply using a term is all that is needed to establish its validity.

Nope. It is your argument and the theory is racist.

Eh, no, this is your argument and your claim. You support it.

According to evolutionary theory + out of africa, Africans today are same as 100000 yrs back with a few gaps in haplogroups. However, European Haplogroups were very recent dating back only a few thousand years.

Define 'the same as' and show us how and where 'evolutionary theory + out of Africa' says what you assert it says.

So, evolution found "natural selection" with "survival of fittest" and proceeded to evolve into Europeans while Africans remained as less evolved?

Do you think chihuahuas are 'less evolved' than wolfhounds? If yes, why? If no, why not!

What about it? According to "Out of Africa" theory, China is not supposed to be populated with AMHs around 100000+ years (date in video is actually more).

There appears to be no video link in 109. As OOA posits migrations beginning as early as 125,000 years ago, your figure if 100,000 years appears to offer no contradiction of this hypothesis.

Evolutionary theory is a racist theory. So does people who support it.

Quite simply nobsense. Evolutionary theory is no more racist than gravitational theory the heiry of relativity.

I am happy to "withdraw unwarranted accusations of racism" as long as you accept that Africans are "equally" evolved as Europeans and no "natural selection" took place to make Europeans better (although I don't believe in Evolution).

Your use of terms like 'equally evolved' are scientifically meaningless and offered solely as value judgements. So, no, I don't accept your simplistic descriptions and yes, I expect you to withdraw your accusation or provide evidence in my posts to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans is the evidence that is against "out of Africa"...

Evidence which is, at best, equivocal and contraindicated by respcent research into Denisovan DNA. So your point would be what, exactly?

...and Biblical equally populated position which you are refusing to accept.

Please show how and where this claim is supported by the MR hypothesis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't refuse to accept anything, I simply wish to see your reasoned, evidenced argument to support your hypothesis.

 

[felix]

Evolution theory says Africans are less evolved than Europeans? Must have missed that in all my study. I thought evolution theory partly explained why they have different colour skin, doesn't say who's more evolved. If one wants to apply that conclusion then they can but the theory itself makes no such claims.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Of course, Evolution theory says Africans are less evolved than Europeans. period.

If you want to know why different skin colors appeared, there is another scientific theory which is widely rejected in Europe but widely accepted in rest of the world. Wonder why? Similar to Evolutionary theory which is racist, there is another racist theory, the other side of how white color came into origin.

A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.
Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html

Our results also reveal for the first time that mutations in SLC24A5 could contribute to extreme hypopigmentation in humans.
Ref: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111912010931

Learn more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5

Have you noticed that the same gene mutation that makes a colored person white is the same gene mutation that causes albinism?

According to this theory, Europeans are a fixed albino race because of the mutation of SLC24A5 gene and other genes.

So, if you say to an African, that Europeans have evolved into modern and "white", then he is going to say, you are just a fixed albino. Actually, to make it more closer, Europeans are not directly African albinos but Indian albinos because Indians are caucasians without the SLC24A5 mutation.

How is this below dude who is a Dravidian?

Ref: http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Indus_Valley_India_1.htm

What is unscientific here in saying that Europeans are white because they are just a fixed albino due to mutations on SLC24A5 ?

You see, this mutation is happening even today from every culture and for this mutation, someone doesn't need to wait thousands of years except the fact that the mutation is fixed among europeans and thus fixed albino theory.

Look, I am no racist nor suggesting the theory. I merely pointed out that, if you or anyone believe in evolutionary theory for explaining skin color (being a racist), then there is an another side to it where you had to take your own medicine. There is even a Biblical explanation for it that is told which is even nastier.

 

[felix]

If you can find any paper on evolutionary theory which proposes that Africans are 'less evolved' and Europeans 'more evolved' you should fit it. Also, you need to define what you understand by and how you measure 'more evolved' and 'less evolved' as you are sing these terms as if they have a generally understood meaning. They don't.

Africans are Homo sapiens. There is no genetic barrier to any member of Homo sapiens breeding with any other member if Homo sapiens. Until you can describe what you mean by 'equally evolved' and how this term has any objective worth, all you are doing is assuming your conclusion by supposing that simply using a term is all that is needed to establish its validity.

Eh, no, this is your argument and your claim. You support it.

Define 'the same as' and show us how and where 'evolutionary theory + out of Africa' says what you assert it says.

Do you think chihuahuas are 'less evolved' than wolfhounds? If yes, why? If no, why not!

There appears to be no video link in 109. As OOA posits migrations beginning as early as 125,000 years ago, your figure if 100,000 years appears to offer no contradiction of this hypothesis.

Quite simply nobsense. Evolutionary theory is no more racist than gravitational theory the heiry of relativity.

Your use of terms like 'equally evolved' are scientifically meaningless and offered solely as value judgements. So, no, I don't accept your simplistic descriptions and yes, I expect you to withdraw your accusation or provide evidence in my posts to support it.

Evidence which is, at best, equivocal and contraindicated by respcent research into Denisovan DNA. So your point would be what, exactly?

Please show how and where this claim is supported by the MR hypothesis. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't refuse to accept anything, I simply wish to see your reasoned, evidenced argument to support your hypothesis.

If "natural section" occurred on an African to become a European, then African is less evolved than European who recently evolved.
No one needs to be a PhD to understand this.

Clever wording and politically correct statements does not hide the fact that Evolutionary theory is racist.

 

[lordkalvan]

If "natural section" occurred on an African to become a European, then African is less evolved than European who recently evolved.
No one needs to be a PhD to understand this.

I see you have no citation to support your claims, but must simply resort to repeating them and asserting their validity as a given.

Clever wording and politically correct statements does not hide the fact that Evolutionary theory is racist.

And your inability to show that this is so is significantly more instructive than your assertions that this is so.

 

[felix]

I see you have no citation to support your claims, but must simply resort to repeating them and asserting their validity as a given.

Evolution is "natural section" for which "survival of the fittest" is the core. i.e, "Europeans" are "naturally selected" from "Africans" through evolution in becoming the recent and modern R haplogroup. If not, someone can prove humans evolved into microbes (or) an European evolving into an African.

If "natural section" is taken out of the equation, then there is no evolution.

I think you are not aware of what evolution really teaches.