Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Different Possibilities of Human Origins

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.

Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:27:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

One scientist? Tiel, you've dug yourself into a deep enough hole, please don't contradict everything known to science.

There weren't even mammals 280 million years ago. The article suggests man lived alongside dinosaurs.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:56:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 10:27:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

One scientist? Tiel, you've dug yourself into a deep enough hole, please don't contradict everything known to science.

There weren't even mammals 280 million years ago. The article suggests man lived alongside dinosaurs.

Next Tiel will say E does not equal mc^2, he will say E=mc^hammer.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:24:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

Everything, including man, was created in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 7:36:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's funny because you probably would have been part of the crowd that was all saying the universe revolved around the sun and mocking Copernicus for stating otherwise.

Just because modern scientists want everything to fit into their biased theories of Freud and Darwin, that does not make it true. If such were the case based on majority, then modern science as we know it would have never came into existence because the church controlled all matters related. Humans continue to learn more and their overall views evolve to fit the bill, our modern day and age is no different. Humans coming from apes is a joke, therefor Darwin is a joke. Freud stating that all consciousness is a series of physical mechanical processes is a joke, therefor Freud is a joke. Both were smart men, just biased in there views.

You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.

Also, just for the record. Nothing you have stated is proven. It is theory. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 7:36:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:24:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

Everything, including man, was created in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago.

Funny. Truly funny.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 8:07:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 7:36:08 PM, Tiel wrote:
It's funny because you probably would have been part of the crowd that was all saying the universe revolved around the sun and mocking Copernicus for stating otherwise.

Just because modern scientists want everything to fit into their biased theories of Freud and Darwin, that does not make it true. If such were the case based on majority, then modern science as we know it would have never came into existence because the church controlled all matters related. Humans continue to learn more and their overall views evolve to fit the bill, our modern day and age is no different. Humans coming from apes is a joke, therefor Darwin is a joke. Freud stating that all consciousness is a series of physical mechanical processes is a joke, therefor Freud is a joke. Both were smart men, just biased in there views.

You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.

Also, just for the record. Nothing you have stated is proven. It is theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

So.....I'm no familiar with any scientist anywhere that would defend Freud.

Also, you should find it horrifically worrying that you expect a scientific hypothesis to leave to a "proof" and not a "theory."

Sorry, Tiel, but you no longer have any ability to make any comments relating to genetics or biology.

How can you even talk about "genetics" when you obviously don't understand how mutation rates and speciation works?

Tiel, this thread, this post, is extremely pathetic.

Like, Young Earth Creationist pathetic but without the blind faith as an excuse.

I'll put you on an intro tour.

Here is 29 pieces of evidence for evolution, all from different scientists, repeated by other scientists, and from different fields of science.

I dare you, I double dare, to read this page and then tell me it's one persons opinion: http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are over 300 scientist experiments/test by hundreds of scientists, all confirming evolutionary theory.

Jeez, Tiel, really, even Hitler had a better sense of how race works.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 8:07:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/16/2011 7:36:08 PM, Tiel wrote:
It's funny because you probably would have been part of the crowd that was all saying the universe revolved around the sun and mocking Copernicus for stating otherwise.

Just because modern scientists want everything to fit into their biased theories of Freud and Darwin, that does not make it true. If such were the case based on majority, then modern science as we know it would have never came into existence because the church controlled all matters related. Humans continue to learn more and their overall views evolve to fit the bill, our modern day and age is no different. Humans coming from apes is a joke, therefor Darwin is a joke. Freud stating that all consciousness is a series of physical mechanical processes is a joke, therefor Freud is a joke. Both were smart men, just biased in there views.

You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.

Also, just for the record. Nothing you have stated is proven. It is theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

So.....I'm no familiar with any scientist anywhere that would defend Freud.

Also, you should find it horrifically worrying that you expect a scientific hypothesis to leave to a "proof" and not a "theory."

Sorry, Tiel, but you no longer have any ability to make any comments relating to genetics or biology.

How can you even talk about "genetics" when you obviously don't understand how mutation rates and speciation works?

Tiel, this thread, this post, is extremely pathetic.

Like, Young Earth Creationist pathetic but without the blind faith as an excuse.

I'll put you on an intro tour.

Here is 29 pieces of evidence for evolution, all from different scientists, repeated by other scientists, and from different fields of science.

I dare you, I double dare, to read this page and then tell me it's one persons opinion: http://www.talkorigins.org...

There are over 300 scientist experiments/test by hundreds of scientists, all confirming evolutionary theory.

Jeez, Tiel, really, even Hitler had a better sense of how race works.

Reply: Your attacks against me not only show that I have hit a nerve (which is credible in itself), but that you are offensive and attack when anyone challenges your chosen reality.

It does not matter how many people join in line and believe something. You go and use your theory to refute the billions of people who believe a book called the bible, just because they are conditioned to or choose to. Just because their are 300 scientists who all want to believe the same thing, that hardly gives any weight towards it being the actual truth. As I have said, their are many scientific anomalies and pieces of evidence that contradict and refute your theories. Modern mainstream science is a biased network, and if it doesn't fit into their model of things it is either thrown out as an anomaly, ridiculed as being uncredible, or accepted because of evidence that cannot be refuted any longer.

Like I said... You would have been part of the crowd ridiculing Copernicus for saying that the universe did not revolve around the earth. You say that I have lost credibility and can't talk about certain subjects any longer, but you are the one that has lost credibility with me and I have no choice but to see you in different light from now on. A light of ignorance and arrogance.

At least I am open to different possibilities... You just think that you know it all and develop your reality from biased ignorance and offensive arrogance towards anything that doesn't fit into your desired model.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:28:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Very interesting thread. I believe in Pangaea and Continental Drift and the gradual variants in skin tone and physical features of the human population due to the varying geographic intensities of the sun, and the nature of the surroundings each group of humans was exposed it. That thus, resulting in evolutionary adaptation, created the distinct differences among human beings we presently recognize as race.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven.:

All traits are heritable, and all instances homologous traits are directly due to inheritance. That's an unassailable fact. Now, if you think you have some exception to that very clear rule, it is incumbent upon you to prove that. Otherwise, the evidence speaks for itself.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.:

Paraphrase it. You can't expect everyone to run out and by this book for this discussion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:24:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

Everything, including man, was created in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago.:

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!! Willful and deliberate ignorance.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 7:38:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.

Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

Actually, Darwin's main theory of natural selection HAS been basically proven.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:41:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:38:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.

Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

Actually, Darwin's main theory of natural selection HAS been basically proven.

No it hasn't. Though I do personally agree that it makes sense and it is what I believe to be true. In my beliefs both creationism and evolution work in harmony to give the real truth of about life and it's processes. For ow though, let's get back to Darwin.

Evolution itself need not be refuted in whole. Darwin was an intelligent man and has given the human race much intelligence about many things. That life evolves, I do not refute this. As a matter of fact it makes perfect sense. That humans come directly from apes. This can be refuted and does not make much sense. There is evidence that supports this and evidence that does not.

It's similar to the scientific community saying that life comes from a primordial soup of chemicals. There is evidence and logic to support this theory, while also evidence and logic that refutes this theory. All in all it is just another unproven scientific theory to add to the list. Are you willing to base your perception of reality around unproven theories? Science has been proven wrong many times in the past. The human understanding of the universe has to have plenty of room for growth, until such an understanding cannot be refuted in any way, shape, or form. Only then can we say that we understand. Modern science does not do this in the mainstream. The mainstream scientific community is similar to the church, as it holds strong to it's beliefs and scoffs at anything that goes against them.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:50:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:38:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.

Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

Actually, Darwin's main theory of natural selection HAS been basically proven.

I wasn't referring to the idea that man evolved from apes. That's not even what evolution says. What I am referring to is the theory that whatever has a batter chance of survival tends to survive, thus gradually changing the species--natural selection.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 8:58:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 8:50:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:38:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/13/2011 10:18:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/13/2011 9:28:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:30:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
I would like to enter a link into the forum for discussion. My personal beliefs of the human origins coincide with the information presented in this link.

http://www.theseekerbooks.com...

This article is quite mistaken. Homo sapiens sapiens have only existed for around 100,000 years. Other species within the homo genus, like homo habilis, were around for millions of years beforehand.

You'd have to deny the physiological difference between, say, homo erectus and homo sapiens in order to argue homo sapiens sapiens have been around for millions of years.

Homo erectus and other precursors to homo sapiens used tools. Even chimps today use tools. So it is not surprising that we discover tools dating millions of years old.

One quick way to dismiss the article you linked to is that it claims a human specimen was found that was over 280 million years old.

Humans separated from chimps 6 million years ago. There weren't even primates 280 millions years old. There are zero citations or examples of evidence past "one expert said...".

Since the late 1700s, people have claimed that different races evolved from different species. For instance, one might claim blacks evolved from homo habilis while whites and all other races evolved from homo sapiens.

However, that simply isn't the case. Again, using the most radical and extremist mutation rates possible, there is no way the races of humans came from species above the level of homo sapiens sapiens.

Humans share around 98% of their functional genes with chimps (the case is stronger but much more complicated if we talk about all genes and not just functional ones). That took over 6 million years of genetic mutation.

Imagine, then, mutation rates for 280 million years.

We should expect "sub-species" within homo sapiens sapiens to have genetic differences of functional genes at the least at 4% give 280 million years. However, we find that the genetic difference between races is almost non-existent for the reasons I have repeated constantly about variation between groups.

I suggest a new source if you want to argue about human origins.

Now I have to say that your perspective is biased and unproven. Just because you read something from a scientist, that does not make it true. Darwin is not proven. Freud is not proven. They have a lot to give, but all must be taken with a grain of salt as it is nothing more than speculation and theory. You may agree with them, but that does not make it true. As a matter of fact, the origins of humans are not proven at all, and especially not proven to have come from chimps.

I respect you, but I firmly disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, we are both entitled to our perspectives respectively.

There is evidence that states the contrary to your views on the subject, and is sourced in the book. You once recommended a book to me. Now I am recommending a book to you. Read "Forbidden Archeology". All of the claims in the book are thoroughly researched and are supported by solid scientific evidence. The book is around 1000 pages long, but it is worth it.

Actually, Darwin's main theory of natural selection HAS been basically proven.

I wasn't referring to the idea that man evolved from apes. That's not even what evolution says. What I am referring to is the theory that whatever has a batter chance of survival tends to survive, thus gradually changing the species--natural selection.

I agree. Makes sense to me.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:04:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 7:28:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
Very interesting thread. I believe in Pangaea and Continental Drift and the gradual variants in skin tone and physical features of the human population due to the varying geographic intensities of the sun, and the nature of the surroundings each group of humans was exposed it. That thus, resulting in evolutionary adaptation, created the distinct differences among human beings we presently recognize as race.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that you will find support for your chosen view from many people on this website. It is the mainstream accepted theory of science after all. Many people won't challenge mainstream scientific theory out of fear of being ridiculed or just out of believing that they are right because "scientist are smart" and have it figured out for the rest of us. Either way, I don't agree. No matter how many generations of white humans spend time in the hot sun, they are not going to turn into black people genetically. That's my own personal beliefs though. Either one of us could be right, though we both could also both be wrong.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 9:50:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 9:04:38 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:28:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
Very interesting thread. I believe in Pangaea and Continental Drift and the gradual variants in skin tone and physical features of the human population due to the varying geographic intensities of the sun, and the nature of the surroundings each group of humans was exposed it. That thus, resulting in evolutionary adaptation, created the distinct differences among human beings we presently recognize as race.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that you will find support for your chosen view from many people on this website. It is the mainstream accepted theory of science after all. Many people won't challenge mainstream scientific theory out of fear of being ridiculed or just out of believing that they are right because "scientist are smart" and have it figured out for the rest of us. Either way, I don't agree. No matter how many generations of white humans spend time in the hot sun, they are not going to turn into black people genetically. That's my own personal beliefs though. Either one of us could be right, though we both could also both be wrong.

For the second time, why on earth would evolutionary theory and common descent predict that one race can turn into another? That's like saying dogs should be able to evolve into cats.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 11:14:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 9:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2011 9:04:38 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:28:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
Very interesting thread. I believe in Pangaea and Continental Drift and the gradual variants in skin tone and physical features of the human population due to the varying geographic intensities of the sun, and the nature of the surroundings each group of humans was exposed it. That thus, resulting in evolutionary adaptation, created the distinct differences among human beings we presently recognize as race.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that you will find support for your chosen view from many people on this website. It is the mainstream accepted theory of science after all. Many people won't challenge mainstream scientific theory out of fear of being ridiculed or just out of believing that they are right because "scientist are smart" and have it figured out for the rest of us. Either way, I don't agree. No matter how many generations of white humans spend time in the hot sun, they are not going to turn into black people genetically. That's my own personal beliefs though. Either one of us could be right, though we both could also both be wrong.

For the second time, why on earth would evolutionary theory and common descent predict that one race can turn into another? That's like saying dogs should be able to evolve into cats.

No, that's not a very accurate comparison at all. A more accurate one would be saying that all modern cats came from one cat species and that all the different variations are only because of being in different locations. Either way, it is all nonsense to me for the most part.

Also, now you are admitting that there are different human races? I thought that there was no difference in your perception?

There are differences. Genetic differences. That's because we all did not come from one source of primate. It is a possibility that the reason we are the only known earth species of life to have the qualities that we humans possess, it is not irrational to think that we could have been an experiment of mixing different alien DNA with different earth primate DNA. Any alien life that could have come here over Earth's history would probably have the technology to create life in such a way. We humans are even capable of doing such things now with the technology that we currently have and are developing.

Like I said... I am open to all possibilities that are logical and rational.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 7:13:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The conceptualization of alien life is based on the irrational notion that life is somehow special and that the attributes we value so highly in ourselves (intelligence, for example) are of any significance outside the realm of our own species. Our intelligence is an evolutionary trait with no more significance than the long neck of a giraffe. It's specific for our existence here. To assume that there are aliens out there who are also intelligent is wishful irrational thinking.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 7:49:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 7:13:59 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The conceptualization of alien life is based on the irrational notion that life is somehow special and that the attributes we value so highly in ourselves (intelligence, for example) are of any significance outside the realm of our own species. Our intelligence is an evolutionary trait with no more significance than the long neck of a giraffe. It's specific for our existence here. To assume that there are aliens out there who are also intelligent is wishful irrational thinking.

Not necessarily. Intelligence confers a survival advantage. Given the vast quantity of planets with potentially life sustaining environments out there, it is not unreasonable to hold to the plausibility of evolution occurring on another planet, and the following possibility of that evolution resulting in other intelligent beings.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 7:59:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/17/2011 9:50:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2011 9:04:38 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 8/17/2011 7:28:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
Very interesting thread. I believe in Pangaea and Continental Drift and the gradual variants in skin tone and physical features of the human population due to the varying geographic intensities of the sun, and the nature of the surroundings each group of humans was exposed it. That thus, resulting in evolutionary adaptation, created the distinct differences among human beings we presently recognize as race.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that you will find support for your chosen view from many people on this website. It is the mainstream accepted theory of science after all. Many people won't challenge mainstream scientific theory out of fear of being ridiculed or just out of believing that they are right because "scientist are smart" and have it figured out for the rest of us. Either way, I don't agree. No matter how many generations of white humans spend time in the hot sun, they are not going to turn into black people genetically. That's my own personal beliefs though. Either one of us could be right, though we both could also both be wrong.

For the second time, why on earth would evolutionary theory and common descent predict that one race can turn into another? That's like saying dogs should be able to evolve into cats.

No it isn't. A dog and a cat is not comparable to someone with white skin and someone with dark skin both of the same species (they aren't even sub-species). The reason why a scientist won't tell you that a white person can turn black is due to variables like inter-racial breeding, so its extremely unlikely but in theory it can happen. Its happened all ready. Notice that India collided with Asia but was once its own entity. Notice that Indians are darker than Asians. Don't deliberately ignore facts to believe what you want.

The evidence behind science's explanation of race is compelling, and you would be a fool to argue without decent support.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 8:39:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:24:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

Everything, including man, was created in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago.

This is the first time you have made me LOL :)
President of DDO
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 10:30:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

I believe in the theory of evolution because of the fossil evidence.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:20:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:24:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/13/2011 7:29:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
This forum is to discuss people's varying beliefs on human origins.

Everything, including man, was created in 6 days around 6 thousand years ago.

Knickers! You got there first. I was just about to make that joke myself!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:26:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 7:13:59 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The conceptualization of alien life is based on the irrational notion that life is somehow special and that the attributes we value so highly in ourselves (intelligence, for example) are of any significance outside the realm of our own species. Our intelligence is an evolutionary trait with no more significance than the long neck of a giraffe. It's specific for our existence here. To assume that there are aliens out there who are also intelligent is wishful irrational thinking.

Erhm..this somehow doesn't sound right.

Intelligence is the ability to manipulate the environment with the knowledge that one is actually doing so.

Given the observation that high specialization leads to a high degree of dependence on the environment not changing coupled with the fact that every single place in the universe that could be capable of having life needs a constantly changing environment (so that there's energy conversion), intelligence would come in handy way better than having a long neck.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 11:30:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The best evidence for evolution can be found in the treatment of diseases.

An antibiotic drug is administered to a patient that kills all but the very strongest bacteria, hopefully curing the patient.

However, the bacteria that survive then go on to reproduce and eventually that strain of the disease becomes resistant to that antibiotic and a new one has to be developed.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2011 2:42:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/18/2011 7:49:00 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/18/2011 7:13:59 AM, Kleptin wrote:
The conceptualization of alien life is based on the irrational notion that life is somehow special and that the attributes we value so highly in ourselves (intelligence, for example) are of any significance outside the realm of our own species. Our intelligence is an evolutionary trait with no more significance than the long neck of a giraffe. It's specific for our existence here. To assume that there are aliens out there who are also intelligent is wishful irrational thinking.

Not necessarily. Intelligence confers a survival advantage. Given the vast quantity of planets with potentially life sustaining environments out there, it is not unreasonable to hold to the plausibility of evolution occurring on another planet, and the following possibility of that evolution resulting in other intelligent beings.

I completely agree. In my perspective, intelligent alien life existing is more probable than not. It is also in my perception that alien life has has high probability of finding earth and influencing certain things in human history, maybe even the creation of the human species itself. It makes sense to me as a possibility that alien life could have mixed their DNA with the existing primates of that earth time era, resulting in the creation of humans. This would make sense to me as it seems that we are the only living earth species to show the type of qualities that we do. Qualities that are unique to only our one species, out of the billions of living earth species that we currently know of. Also, the fact that many ancient religions speak of their Gods (aliens?) as coming out of the sky and that humans were created in the image of their creator... These bits of information and much more are all quite convincing toward accepting the possibility of such things. Though my specific perception on human history is still continuously being shaped and forged.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."