@UnexpectedWonder I realise that there is a lot of confusion about this. This is mainly the result of the US's demonisation of the word "atheist". Atheists in the US oftenly call themselves "agnostic", just so they wouldn't be the target of demonisation. So they just "moderatly" say "there is no proof of god though, so we doubt". What they really mean is "don't be such an idiot believing in fairy tales".
Just realise that (a)gnosticism and (a)theism are NOT mutually exclusive.
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder Theism deals with belief in a personal god. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. One is a qualifier of the other:
- gnostic theist: I know there is a god.
- agnostic theist: I have faith there is a god
- gnostic athiest: I know there is no god
- agnostic atheist: I don't believe in gods.
See?
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
gnostic theist: I 'know' there is a god(s)
agnostic theist: I think there is a god(s)
gnostic atheist: I 'know' there is no god(s)
agnostic atheist: I think there is no god(s)
So many problems would be avoided if people just knew what these 4 simple categories were.
In my opinion, since we can't "know" either way, we are all either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists -
so it just comes down to whether or not you think a supernatural intelligence that controls morality is logical or not.
leighgridley 16 hours ago
@leighgridley Indeed. I have also always maintained that those who call/describe themselves (directly or indirectly) as being "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are either intellectually dishonest, delusional or simply lying.
Contrary to popular opinion, atheists can be intellectually dishonest as well.
ScientificBob 15 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder Common ancestry is a fact. The theory explains HOW this happened: through mutation and natural selection. To doubt this is just silly. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming. More factors then JUST natural selection (ie: what lives and reproduces carries on the genes that allowed for it) come into play off course (genetic drift, sexual selection etc) and no doubt in my mind that more will be uncovered.
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@UnexpectedWonder How come the chimpansee's short term memory out performs us 1000-fold?
Reason: they live in trees and swing from tree to tree. Outstanding short term memory enables them to perfectly remember where every branch is in a split second . This allows for fast travel through trees.
Why do humans have advanced intellect? We left our comfort zone in the jungle. We were a vulnerable social species that were faced by all sorts of threats. Our intelligence offered a way out.
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@JayMerc75 No scientist is debating evolution theory.
Creatards are spewing nonsense and scientists are correcting them. There is no debate. There is only ignorant people who know NOTHING about biology who need to be educated - and some scientists are attempting to do that. The others are just going about their daily business working withing evolutionary biology, laughing at people like you.
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@JayMerc75 Again, what we have in common with other animals can be mapped PERFECTLY onto the phylogenetic tree. You can draw this tree INDEPENDENTLY based on geographic spread of species, the fossil record, DNA strings, single genes, anatomy, fysiology,... And it's ALWAYS the SAME tree.
It's a FAMILY TREE. The closer we are related to another species, the more things we have in common in EVERY aspect (geography, DNA, gene sequences, single genes, anatomy, fysiology etc etc).
ScientificBob 17 hours ago
@ScientificBob I was confused by the term "fysiology" until I saw you were from Belgium. The English version is "physiology". Terrific post by the way.
ExtantFrodo 14 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Ha, thanks
Yeah, even in dutch I get confused about "f" and "ph". Especially in Belgium, with all the history with the french. We borrow heavily, in language, from french and english. It's "f" and "ph" all over the place in such words and sometimes, both are even correct. lol.
ScientificBob 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 However, this does NOT change the fact that DNA-wise, we are far more similar to chimps then chimps are to gorilla's. DNA doesn't lie. If people want to claim that we can't use DNA as a comparative standard, then they should also claim that paternal testing can't work. Wich they off course will never do. And that's why these creatards are hypocrits and liars.
ScientificBob 18 hours ago
@entificBob Ah but then again, if you don’t have a genetic sample from the child how can you prove the parents had a child? Without the missing link between Humans and Chimps how can you assert to have proof; you can say comparative DNA suggests to the existence of CHLCA but you can never say that it proves its existence Theories are never certain and Evolution is proof of this and just like the existence of God is rejected by lack of physical proof by logic Evolution should be equally rejected
ernesto7012 10 hours ago
@ernesto7012 That didn't make a lot of sense and it (again) show your lack of comprehension about the subject. First of all, "theory" in science means EXPLANATION. NOT "guess" or "hunch".
Secondly, paternal testing is practical application of the exact same principles. It all boils down to the hereditary and accumulative nature of DNA. This is why the test works. And this is why the genographic project works. And this is how we can measure the level of "relatedness" between 2 organisms.
ScientificBob 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Once more, to make sure you get it. DNA is CUMULATIVE. What happens to it in A is traceable in it's offspring's DNA if the event was hereditary. If we map out our DNA compared to ANY OTHER creature, we get an hierarchical tree that corresponds PERFECTLY with the fossil record, comparative anatomy,.. even the geographic spread of species. This is because it is a FAMILY TREE. You can debunk evolution by finding an organism that breaks this tree. You'll get a nobel prize for sure!
ScientificBob 9 hours ago
You know that technology we use for paternity suits? It takes the chromosomes and using a special code selective cutter breaks the chromosome into CHUNKS and we sort the chunks according to size. The result (just by weight of segments) is sufficient to indict for murder.
In human vrs chimp we are looking at the actual text of the DNA base pairs, it's not merely similar in the functional 'useful' regions, it is identical in virtually all the non-coding & broken places as well as ERV locations.
ExtantFrodo 9 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Here's the thing. How do you know Joey has cheated on his school test? If he cheated he probably copied the wrong answers along with the right ones. Getting the right answer is statistically not abnormal, but two people constantly getting the same WRONG answers (ERVs,pseudoggenes,noncoding mutation patterns) indicates cheating(copying) in other words...common descent. Google evolutoin of the primate GULO gene for an excellent example.
ExtantFrodo 9 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Yes, exactly, the odds of chimps and human not from the same genetic lineage is phenomenal. I put videos on this on my forum. The odds of humans being the chimps "common ancestor" are over 1/.99 meaning that chimps are degraded human genome descendent's. This is also because the oldest upright human is over 6 million years old according to radiometric dating. Chimps are no more than 500 thousand years old.
GoodScienceForYou 9 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo ANSWER Joey has to be caught on the act to positively say that he has cheated other way you are just assuming same goes for the existence of CHLCA base on DNA testing you are just assuming its existence There is your leap of Faith There aren’t any fossils for CHLCA, proto-chimp or proto-gorilla you are just assuming their existence; as a believer I’m not ashamed to say that I walk by Faith but you have to admit you have some of that too
No specimen No test No Proof Simple as That
ernesto7012 8 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Having the same WRONG answers is equivalent to being caught in the act. I will post the statistics next. You will note I only post for up to THREE. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure what the odds are for the HUNDREDS of different species of primate each of which share the broken GULO gene.
ExtantFrodo 8 hours ago
We are talking about the same mutation in the same gene.
The odds of this happening at random in 2 separate organisms with human sized genomes(HSG) is 1 in 3 Billion.
The odds of this happening at random in 3 separate organisms with HSG is 1 in 9 Billion Billion.
The odds of this happening at random in 4 separate organisms with HSG is 1 in 27 Billion Billion Billion.
The odds of this happening in hundreds of different primates due to common ancestor 1:1
ExtantFrodo 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Absolutely, and they all de-evolved from humans and intermixing the breeding with primates.
This is shown in all the evidence, if you look.
How many fossils of Gorilla? Chimp? Orangutan?
Zero, One, One
The orangutan is from 100 thou to 2mil much younger than upright human predecessors. Chimp is 500thou.
But the dating is flawed, of course, because it is based on assumptions that can never be verified.
Even so the theory of human as the common ancestor fits the evidence we do have
GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo If you open your eyes, you too will see that all of the evidence points only to humans as the common ancestor of all the apes and continual degradation of the original human genome as we see today.
GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou "If you open your eyes, you too will see that all of the evidence points only to humans as the common ancestor of all the apes"
chimps, gorillas, orangutans, bonoboes, macaques, all descended from humans, but without evolution. You never cease to amaze me.
ExtantFrodo 6 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Go look at the evidence. It is all there for you to see. Why do you need this magical ape man that has never been seen, and all the evidence points in the opposite direction from any form of evolution as defined.
Evolution: "that theory which sees in the history of all things organic and inorganic a development from simplicity to complexity, a gradual advance from a simple or rudimentary condition to one that is more complex and of a higher character."
GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Could you explain to me why you think that genetic algorithms being restricted to pseudo-random mutation means that the positive results obtained are invalid?
ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Because it is artificial and does not represent reality. Life is not a computer game.
GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou In as much as it is a model of reality, I ask why can you not force evolution to not occur even as god of the simulation? Why does it have to occur no matter what you try to do? Why does it have to occur even in theory when you apply all mathematical rigor to it?
ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo "Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex". There are a lot of Human characteristics in Chimp family.
GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo 2,588,000 to 12,000 years Is where the macaques fit, and they have reduced chromosomes from Human and are definitely and offshoot of the chimp at 500,000 years. The timeline fits just fine for degradation from Human on down to this time. The chromosomes show alignment with humans and some more fusions.
Chomosomes don't un-fuse. Once they are fused the don't evolve and separate.
GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
There are almost 2 million less base pairs in the macaques as well. This means de-evolution for sure with all the other evidence.
GoodScienceForYou 3 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Are Scientific Truths based on odds? Because I thought those where based on first hand experimentation Would you believe in the existence of God if I tell you that there is a 100% possibility that God exists and that I am the physical proof for that.
Other than my words what would you ask of me to accept the existence of God? Wouldn’t it be a first hand experience? Why am I wrong by asking the same? Evolution is not a proven fact; too many missing links just keep it a Theory
ernesto7012 7 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Google "Practical applications of evolution". That shows just how much evolutionary theory has moved from HYPOTHESIS to THEORY. A BIG distinction here that you seem not to realize is that a theory in science is something that has been proven time and again. The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution. Also, watch this vid:
watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
This shows a prediction evolutionary theory made that we discovered was true. Against the odds.
ProblemHonorStudent 7 hours ago
@ProblemHonorStudent Is it a proven fact that CHLCA ever existed? NO it is a hypothesis a simple supposition within the Evolution Theory What I’m saying is that you can’t claim to have the truth when you have no means to prove it The scientists can play with theories but my Faith does not depend in the results of those theories and if you are going to blame me because I have faith; wouldn’t it be better to discern your own faith?
ernesto7012 6 hours ago
@ernesto7012 I don't blame you for your faith, under one condition; You don't apply your faith-based beliefs to politics or science. In other words, let the pastors do the preaching, let the teachers do the teaching, and let the scientists discern truth from fiction, based on the evidence. While every single piece of the puzzle isn't in, that's no reason to discount the theory. We don't completely understand atoms, but we have a pretty good handle on them. Practical applications, like I said.
ProblemHonorStudent 6 hours ago
@ernesto7012 Evolution withstands the obliteration test. Obliterate all writings and memory of evolution, it can be reformed entirely from evidence. Obliterate all writings and memory of a religion, it's gone forever. It can't be reformed from evidence.
ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Actually the evidence is against evolution. The ideological belief is not founded on the evidence. When it started there was no DNA, and not many fossils. It was an idea and that idea took hold in people's minds and people project belief on the world all the time. There is no evolution, only adaptation, and de-evolution or downgrading of all species. There is no evidence for added complexity.
GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo At the time this "theory" was presented there was no evidence to give rise to this. It came from an archaic belief system. PERIOD. Then this guy had this idea that magical causes were in nature. Just like all religions it took hold and people want to believe in this. It is not self generating. DNA pretty much destroys it.
GoodScienceForYou 5 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Darwin spent decades going over his collected data. To say there was no evidence at the time is a lie.
ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@Frodo Let’s say someone obliterate all writings and memory from both science and religion from the world I propose that history will repeat itself humans will look for a higher power then some will experience this Higher Power and some don’t dividing the human race again between those who believe and those who don’t believe, believers will say My Spirit tells me so The Unbelievers will say We are animals, let us live our only lives as we want, besides where do you get this thing called Spirit?
ernesto7012 4 hours ago
@ernesto7012 "Are Scientific Truths based on odds?"
When the odds of something occurring at random are billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions to one against and the odds of it occurring due to some other explanation are one to one for it then yes to not call it true is just plain stupid. Especially when it's also parsimonious with all the other evidence.
ExtantFrodo 5 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo The brokne GULO gene is ovbvious from the human ancestor. It also fits perfectly.
GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo The assumption is that there is some magical ape man that these creatures humans and primates came from. The evidence of ONLY continual NET degradation is against this idea of any improvement from the crude, primitive to the advanced and more intelligent etc. So, the great primates can only have de-evolved from humans with superior genetic structures, superior brain capacity, superior abilities to adapt and survive. Most of those are gone now. We are very weak physically compared.
GoodScienceForYou 8 hours ago
@ernesto7012 There is no "agenda". There is no "special" evolution. Yes, we APPEAR to have less in common with chimps then chimps do with gorilla's, yes. But that's just looks. And to be honest, it's not THAT big a difference: bigger brain (as good as ALL changes to our head is a result of this), we walk upright, we lost our fur (and our skin softened). As far as looks goes, that's about it.
ScientificBob 18 hours ago
Just wondering why no one has figured this out: for millions of years, humans have been here, but still have no idea or clue how the human body fully works or functions. yet we are slowly trying to "create" robotic simulations of humans. So does that not somehow clue in that the human body is in itself a super organic computer? which can never be replicated. and also with millions of species being different unique organic computers. all supposedly started from a single cell bacteria.
zeineguy 18 hours ago
« for millions of years, humans have been here »
Bit less. Current best estimate is 300.000 years tops. Agriculte has only existed for about 11.000 years. We developed writing less than 8000 years ago. And that's when things really started happening.
XGralgrathor 13 hours ago
@XGralgrathor current best extimate.. wow nice of you to bring the facts. and how did you come to this conclusion? honestly why dont you just not comment or even better, just say WE DONT f**kING KNOW!!! cause that is the correct answer. when was the last catastrophic event on earth? it is at that point that humans came to being on this planet.
zeineguy 6 hours ago
« So does that not somehow clue in that the human body is in itself a super organic computer? »
No, it doesn't. It shows that humans are slowly learning to understand and mimic nature.
XGralgrathor 13 hours ago
@XGralgrathor lmfao
zeineguy 6 hours ago
amazing video. So we can find dinosaur fossils and bones, millions of years ago.. but we still havent found that "missing" link. somewhere that it mutated twice with one side going to humans and the other going to apes. Seriously, Dawkins just picked a side less popular and using it to make a living. Has to keep up the shill to put out more books for the trolls. But even he has NO real inclination as to where we came from. POOF!! its magic!!
zeineguy 18 hours ago
Enlightened Theologians know that evolution is true due to the fact that the evidence is so overwhelming. If only more religious people were somewhat enlightened.........
MVT44 21 hours ago
This guy is a joke!! He always has a made up ready answer to try to confuse you. This freak insults my intelligence and you wonder why people act like animals because we are taught that we came from them. lol
mindsprain 22 hours ago
@mindsprain "act like animals" ... you mean sharing loving raising our young helping eachother survive difficult times.. those sort of things animals do?
ExtantFrodo 22 hours ago
Tsk, tsk dawkins!, where is your evidence???, 6million years ago my arse!, just more assumptions and speculation!, what made us suddently barnch off???, evolution raises more questions than answers!.
Aheadstix85 23 hours ago
The Corporations want fodder for the corporations that do not have "ethical" issues that would stop them from getting as much money as possible. Using science to promote atheism is good for corporations. You do not want a CEO with a conscience. Understand.? Corporations own the Ivy League universities in US and Europe with endowments. One has a $3 billion endowment in excess of anything they can spend.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
Ah, atheism. The perfect position to take when you are a rebel who wants an excuse to commit crimes.
Thankfully, the righteous will always safeguard society against these types of evil.
EspnNBAGeneral 1 day ago
@EspnNBAGeneral The Corporations want fodder for the corporations that do not have "ethical" issues that would stop them from getting as much money as possible. Using science to promote atheism is good for corporations. You do not want a CEO with a conscience. Understand.? Corporations own the Ivy League universities in US and Europe with endowments. One has a $3 billion endowment in excess of anything they can spend.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
Stephen Baldwin making comments on science is like my cat analyzing motorcycle technology.
donfishmaster 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
UnHolyBabble 1 day ago
I like how this guy has no more than a wall chart for evidence to his claims. What a fool
Reisaei 1 day ago
@Reisaei and a few hundred years of research.
GutlessNut 1 day ago
@Reisaei Are you f**king serious? You need more than a chart to realize you look sort of like an ape, because we have common ancestors? If you can't understand that, then stop trying. You're clearly lost forever, guy.
beatonm198 1 day ago
@beatonm198 "because we have common ancestors?" The common ancestor is human. This is in all the evidence. Goto GoodScienceForYou Neutral Evolution Forum. I have decoded all the evidence for you there.
Evolution is a religion with mystical common ancestors that they never seem to find. This is because they are still trying to hold on to this ideology for over 150 years of constant evidence against it.
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
The fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in the rocks are dated by the fossils found in them there are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. Jesus loves everyone and someday we all have to face him .
primetimebuckeye 1 day ago
@primetimebuckeye wrong. the rocks are date by radio isotope ratios of parent/daughter content.
if you've many hourglasses (say a 1hr, a 2hr, a 3hr & a 9hr) and you test a sample and find
the 1hourglass is empty (more than 1hr)
the 2hourglass is 3/4ths empty (1.5 hrs)
the 3hourglass is 1/2 empty (1.5 hrs)
the 9hourglass is 1/6th empty (1.5 hrs)
And You obtain similar corresponding results with the vast majority of the samples you take (and showing greater time with deeper samples).
Conclusion?
ExtantFrodo 1 day ago
@ExtantFrodo "Conclusion?" It is based on primitive assumptions and beliefs. They don't even know what "time" is.
GoodScienceForYou 22 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Primitive assumptions like "whoa, when I obtain the same ratios for all these element no matter where i sample on the earth and it fits this mathematical model of radioactive decay very very well, I should just throw out any notion that it's reliable or significant."
time for you to go to bed bonzo.
ExtantFrodo 22 hours ago
@ExtantFrodo Yes Primitive assumptions are not science. They do not have enough data to use this radiometric dating. There is no way to verify any of it with historical data beyond 10,000 years. That is like trying to light a 47 mile road in pitch black with a flashlight that shines for 6 inches. How can you fall for a bunch of retarded assumptions like that?
GoodScienceForYou 19 hours ago
@GoodScienceForYou Give a set of samples to different labs and they will put them in the same order. The exact same order they were in the undisturbed earth. By your failure of understanding that should be impossible. So how do they do it?
ExtantFrodo 14 hours ago
@primetimebuckeye Evolution is constantly in motion, therefore ALL forms found are transitional. Fossils are rocks themselves, generally created by the addition of minerals to bone over time which permeates them and allows for their ability to last so long within the rock. Know what you're talking about before you refute plain and obvious evidence against your highly held beliefs.
beatonm198 1 day ago
@beatonm198 They are all transitional toward de-evolution. All of the evidence on ALL creatures shows only a one way path of degrading and gene loss. This is in all the DNA of all species. Why don't you know this?
GoodScienceForYou 1 day ago
@GoodScienceForYou Correct, the C