Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 20 of 165 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,643 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
Good thing they were Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or we wouldn't be here today.
ADAM & STEVE
hahahahahahahahaha

You made me laugh out loud

Fact, if you stay in the bath too long, your fingers wrinkel, why i ask you ?

So you have more "grip" when swimming ... (not mind my english please)

Hippos & Whails have the same songs ....

We are just a bunch of fish, so Adam & Steve were not "alone" ha ha ha

They say we are the third Civelasation to occupy this same globe ....

Andre using TaPaTaLk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
From my study of the topic, the way evolution through natural selection works there can be no definable 'first couple' of humans. If there were, that would cause a genetic bottleneck.

For example, the Cheetah population was once down to like 18 individuals. This genetic bottleneck resulted in the Cheetah being genetically screwed up and the animals were all so closely related that you could transplant organs from one to another and not have to be concerned about rejection... their DNA is so similar. Nature's 'fix' is that the female Cheetah will mate with several males and the cubs in the litter will have different fathers... this gives back genetic diversity to the Cheetah population.

Even IF there were a 'first couple' it does not coincide with the biblical account since they would have lived a lot longer ago than 10,000 years and they still came to be by descending from lower life forms.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/11/26/no-humans-are-probably-not-all-descended-from-a-single-couple-who-lived-200000-years-ago/#122c113f7cd8


"The idea of humans being reduced to a population of two, who then had to repopulate the planet, has understandably drawn people's attention. But this idea is almost certainly wrong, for a host of reasons.

First, we should always be hesitant about drawing big conclusions from mitochondrial DNA, and especially from a single gene - even if that gene has been examined in hundreds of species. Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from one's mother, so it necessarily only tells us about the female line. More importantly, because there is so little of it, it often misleads us. When the mitochondrial genome of Neanderthals was sequenced, it showed no sign that humans and Neanderthals had interbred. The interbreeding was only revealed when the Neanderthal nuclear genome was read.

Second, there is no trace in the geological record of any such global event in the last 200,000 years. Any event that slashed populations that significantly would surely have led to a noticeable spike in the extinction rate, and there isn't one. There are of course the extinctions linked to humans, but those occurred at separate times and locations, not simultaneously across the planet."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
From my study of the topic, the way evolution through natural selection works there can be no definable 'first couple' of humans. If there were, that would cause a genetic bottleneck.

For example, the Cheetah population was once down to like 18 individuals. This genetic bottleneck resulted in the Cheetah being genetically screwed up and the animals were all so closely related that you could transplant organs from one to another and not have to be concerned about rejection... their DNA is so similar. Nature's 'fix' is that the female Cheetah will mate with several males and the cubs in the litter will have different fathers... this gives back genetic diversity to the Cheetah population.

Even IF there were a 'first couple' it does not coincide with the biblical account since they would have lived a lot longer ago than 10,000 years and they still came to be by descending from lower life forms.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/11/26/no-humans-are-probably-not-all-descended-from-a-single-couple-who-lived-200000-years-ago/#122c113f7cd8


"The idea of humans being reduced to a population of two, who then had to repopulate the planet, has understandably drawn people's attention. But this idea is almost certainly wrong, for a host of reasons.

First, we should always be hesitant about drawing big conclusions from mitochondrial DNA, and especially from a single gene - even if that gene has been examined in hundreds of species. Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from one's mother, so it necessarily only tells us about the female line. More importantly, because there is so little of it, it often misleads us. When the mitochondrial genome of Neanderthals was sequenced, it showed no sign that humans and Neanderthals had interbred. The interbreeding was only revealed when the Neanderthal nuclear genome was read.

Second, there is no trace in the geological record of any such global event in the last 200,000 years. Any event that slashed populations that significantly would surely have led to a noticeable spike in the extinction rate, and there isn't one. There are of course the extinctions linked to humans, but those occurred at separate times and locations, not simultaneously across the planet."
Then by your "studies" there couldn't be two Cheetahs, two whales, two Giraffes, two of anything to start a species because of the genetic bottleneck.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,138 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
From my study of the topic, the way evolution through natural selection works there can be no definable 'first couple' of humans. If there were, that would cause a genetic bottleneck.

For example, the Cheetah population was once down to like 18 individuals. This genetic bottleneck resulted in the Cheetah being genetically screwed up and the animals were all so closely related that you could transplant organs from one to another and not have to be concerned about rejection... their DNA is so similar. Nature's 'fix' is that the female Cheetah will mate with several males and the cubs in the litter will have different fathers... this gives back genetic diversity to the Cheetah population.

Even IF there were a 'first couple' it does not coincide with the biblical account since they would have lived a lot longer ago than 10,000 years and they still came to be by descending from lower life forms.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/11/26/no-humans-are-probably-not-all-descended-from-a-single-couple-who-lived-200000-years-ago/#122c113f7cd8


"The idea of humans being reduced to a population of two, who then had to repopulate the planet, has understandably drawn people's attention. But this idea is almost certainly wrong, for a host of reasons.

First, we should always be hesitant about drawing big conclusions from mitochondrial DNA, and especially from a single gene - even if that gene has been examined in hundreds of species. Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from one's mother, so it necessarily only tells us about the female line. More importantly, because there is so little of it, it often misleads us. When the mitochondrial genome of Neanderthals was sequenced, it showed no sign that humans and Neanderthals had interbred. The interbreeding was only revealed when the Neanderthal nuclear genome was read.

Second, there is no trace in the geological record of any such global event in the last 200,000 years. Any event that slashed populations that significantly would surely have led to a noticeable spike in the extinction rate, and there isn't one. There are of course the extinctions linked to humans, but those occurred at separate times and locations, not simultaneously across the planet."
I'M NOT SURE OF ALL THAT. A brother and sister can have a normal child. Siblings DNA are not exactly the same some closer than others. I read a article about identical triplets that had DNA test. All by the same company at the same time. Their DNA was all different ethnicity was different DNA. So maybe with the right crosses in time you could widen the DNA matches and have or create a normal breading field. I don't know, but I do know that things are proven wrong all the time. The test I referenced said we all started from a single couple.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
I'M NOT SURE OF ALL THAT
Well, do you want to find out?
or
Do you want to accept the video you posted as the conclusion?

The video you posted is FOX News interviewing a Pastor. It opens with "Researchers in the US and Switzerland are releasing a study..."
What study? By whom? They give no reference material.

The Pastor straight up tells us (as he snickers at Evolutionary Theory) exactly where his beliefs come from and lets us know, in no uncertain terms, that he does not accept science... except, of course, when it finds something to back up his beliefs. I'll bet he uses the things that science has brought us every day of his life (his LONG life due to modern medical knowledge), while speaking of his distrust of the scientific method (He's on television and the internet!).

Now, I went looking for this scientific study they speak of... I found an article on the study and it says this...
"These Primeval people are not parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today."


https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429904-500-found-closest-link-to-eve-our-universal-ancestor/

The finding of the study referenced in your video in no way refutes Evolutionary Theory or supports the biblical creation account in Genesis. The Pastor in the Video was simply preaching his biblical worldview with all the common arguments of complexity etc. that are used by the religious to cast doubt on Evolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
HC are you up for this? LOL. Looks like you are going to try to use facts and science and it may not go well with this crowd, have a look at the Political Thread if you want a sense of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,627 Posts
Yeah, this complexity argument that the religious make is the most easily refuted. For this, they argue that something as complex as man or some small aspect of him like the eye could not have evolved through natural selection. They argue there is a creator who is, by necessity, more complex than its creations but they argue that this even MORE complex creator can exist without having been created while the lesser complex critter known as man must have a creator. Clearly a logical fallacy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
HC are you up for this? LOL. Looks like you are going to try to use facts and science and it may not go well with this crowd, have a look at the Political Thread if you want a sense of it.
This is why I stopped trying to having any logical discussion with "that group" because you can not argue
with a belief system,

they believe in god because they are weak minded and need guidance.
kinda the same reason they think trump is a god.



Sorry just had to............:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek:eek
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
Anyone want to know my theory of how we got here? Warning, the theory involved decades of research and Sasquatch :-|
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
Then how did we get these animals like Cheetahs?
Why don't you FIND OUT? Why not ask your questions of an Evolutionary Biologist? It started with a self-replicating molecule... Did you know there are Amoeba that carry 200 times the genetic information of the human genome?

Once the genome was sequenced (by a devout Christian named Francis Collins) it became obvious that all life came from a common ancestor. You have all the genes to be a Starfish. Accepting Evolution does not mean you must reject faith. "I just don't see how this could all happen by itself" is not an explanation, nor is it a reason to reject the real answers.



The cool thing about faith is it doesn't need the validation of small-minded people to have it. You either get it or you don't.
I see no reason to attack each other...

Out of all the world's religions, what made you decide yours is true? Why is it necessary to reject science to believe in God? If you REALLY don't trust science, get rid of that smart phone and get off the internet. When you're sick, have the ambulance take you to a church instead of a hospital.

We all trust science (we use the discoveries brought to us by the scientific method EVERY DAY). Science doesn't require faith, in fact the methods don't allow it... but to dismiss certain scientific discoveries because "I just can't see how that could be true" does require something called 'denial'.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,375 Posts
Like Ken Ham said, “Well, there’s this book.” Yea, but who wrote the book?

Someone else said “Fossils were placed by god to test our faith”.

Seriously?

I can’t get my head around the fact that there are many religions around the world, and most (if not all) seem to insist they are the One True Path. Which one is correct?

Occam’s Razor comes into play here, which says given a variety of scenarios, the simplest one tends to be the answer.

“How about the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?”

I forgot where I found that but its a good question. And if it’s wrong, well, I’m not religious.

Sounds more like a description of things to tell the masses before we actually discovered many of the truths we simply didn’t know 2000 years ago.
 
1 - 20 of 165 Posts
Top