Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1771 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:23 AM


  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1772 Wh!stler R!der

Wh!stler R!der

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 09

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:51 AM

Oh dear this thread looks like a cage match!
  • 0
This city deserves a championship. This is the best era in Canucks history, keep bleeding blue n green always!
Win it for Ripper, Luc and Demo.

#1773 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:28 AM

Oh dear this thread looks like a cage match!


Sorry Grandma. :lol:
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1774 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,468 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:56 AM

I was watching NovaScience Now, this evening, about what makes humans 'human' and different from other species on this planet. There were some interesting points covered about our evolution.

But one thing in particular stood out for me, profoundly, actually.

And as it relates to this thread and the topic of this thread, it sort of dawned on me that if science is able to turn the creation story(Adam & Eve) on its ear, even more than it has already, mind you, then perhaps science is capable, as a 'worldy' thing, to disprove the foundation of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions....since they're all essentially versions of each other.

And what I believe turns the creation story even moreso on its ear, was the proof, the genetic proof in the majority of the world's human population, as a whole, which can be and has been proven to contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.

This means, that the majority of humans today, in fact aren't 100% human.....we're almost all a product of inter-species sexual relations by our fore-fathers, or perhaps fore-mothers.

The only truly 'human' humans are Africans. Yep, their DNA is purer than yours or mine, because they didn't migrate out of Africa, into Asia and Europe, and onwards, they stayed there and continued to develop as modern day humans. Those that went North, towards Europe, evolved into the separate species 'Homo Neanderthalensis'.

Yup, Europeans and Asians are evolution's 'muggles'. Europeans moreso though. Higher muggle-blood factor.

Now, this kind of throws a bit of a monkey wrench in that whole, created in 'His' image, no? Unless 'He' was part Neanderthal too. I mean much of 'His' actions were certainly Neanderthal-like.

So,

No to the 'created in His image'....obviously.
No to the female gender being made from the male's rib....obviously.
No to the whole, it takes only two of one species to populate an entire planet, that has another species DNA mixed in....obviously.
And pretty much no, to the majority of Genesis and the Book of Genesis, something acknowledged and used by all 3 religions.

And, it can all be disproven scientifically.

Alright, I await the moving of goalposts and the making of excuses and evidence-less interpretations of so-called interpretations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM

To be fair though it all depends on what the word "image" means. I mean nothing you've said here is incorrect but that word image is a bit ambiguous. (cue Ace and Gary pics) It probably won't be a moving of the goalposts as much as it will be about the interpretation of such an unspecific term.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 11 October 2012 - 09:00 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1775 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:02 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM

To be fair though it all depends on what the word "image" means. I mean nothing you've said here is incorrect but that word image is a bit ambiguous. (cue Ace and Gary pics) It probably won't be a moving of the goalposts as much as it will be about the interpretation of such an unspecific term.


Hey, don't go all Clinton on me brotha, is means is alright?!
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1776 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,468 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:15 AM

Hey, don't go all Clinton on me brotha, is means is alright?!


Oh you saw me pull out that cigar did you.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1777 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:22 AM

Oh you saw me pull out that cigar did you.


Saw you?!

It's all I could do to get it out.

You gonna smoke that now?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1778 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,162 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:39 AM

Lol at beating the creation story over the head when the vast majority of religious people don't even take it seriously. But that's been the argument of 'The God Delusion' all this time. It bases all it's anti-Yahweh hate on the assumption that the entire bible is supposed to be taken literally. Yeah... Of course it's not. Now what? "Well, duh, then it can't be proved by science!" lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#1779 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

Lol at beating the creation story over the head when the vast majority of religious people don't even take it seriously. But that's been the argument of 'The God Delusion' all this time. It bases all it's anti-Yahweh hate on the assumption that the entire bible is supposed to be taken literally. Yeah... Of course it's not. Now what? "Well, duh, then it can't be proved by science!" lol


On what basis then was the reason for including the creation story, if not for the account of divine creation, the foundation from which the rest of the book, and subsequently all three religions,builds its case in, of and for, a divine creator from?
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1780 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

Karen Armstrong in The Case for God (she's not a theist fyi) say's that the Hebrew people didn't take the creation story as a literal sequence of events. Almost 4,000 years later fundamentalist christians started to take it literally - setting themselves up as easy targets for guys like Dawkins.

Yes the main theist religions build on divine creation...but disproving a literal reading on Genesis 1 and 2 won't be enough to disprove God, nor should it.

That's just my two cents. I'd be interested to hear some christian responses or thoughts to this.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1781 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

To be fair though it all depends on what the word "image" means. I mean nothing you've said here is incorrect but that word image is a bit ambiguous. (cue Ace and Gary pics) It probably won't be a moving of the goalposts as much as it will be about the interpretation of such an unspecific term.

Yeah I think it's Francis Collins who makes the point of: are we supposed to think we are literally made in God's image as in with fingers, toes, a GI system etc. or was this meaning made with consciousness, a mind, will, morals etc.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1782 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 10:46 AM

Yeah I think it's Francis Collins who makes the point of: are we supposed to think we are literally made in God's image as in with fingers, toes, a GI system etc. or was this meaning made with consciousness, a mind, will, morals etc.


If we were created with reflection to the Abrahamic God's morals, then he's one evil mofo that answers for a lot of his actions over the years and why we're capable of so much immorality.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1783 Super19

Super19

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,438 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 10

Posted 11 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

If we were created with reflection to the Abrahamic God's morals, then he's one evil mofo that answers for a lot of his actions over the years and why we're capable of so much immorality.

"One evil mofo"? Drinking the misotheist soup this morning, I see.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1784 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

"One evil mofo"? Drinking the misotheist soup this morning, I see.


You still using your 'Word of the Day'?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1785 Tom-The-Great

Tom-The-Great

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

it's not soup, it's tea.
  • 0

#1786 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:44 PM

On what basis then was the reason for including the creation story, if not for the account of divine creation, the foundation from which the rest of the book, and subsequently all three religions,builds its case in, of and for, a divine creator from?


I'm of the belief that the original Abrahamic creation story is nothing more than a shorthand of the Enuma Elish the Assyrian version of the same which was an abstraction of the earlier Sumerian epic. Being as Abram was actually a from this part of the world the inclusion makes sense, albeit altered from the original to imply monotheism (though not if you look too closely).

The continued inclusion bespoke millenia of lack of understanding of its root source and the pagan basis of the belief. Simply put, the story needed a beginning and one which was familiar in its core to most people in the Near East. Continuing to believe its veracity in light of the last hundred years of discovery is all on the modern Luddites.

Edited by theminister, 11 October 2012 - 01:45 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1787 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,162 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 01:53 PM

On what basis then was the reason for including the creation story, if not for the account of divine creation, the foundation from which the rest of the book, and subsequently all three religions,builds its case in, of and for, a divine creator from?

Without Genesis, there may very well be a 'rest of the bible.' We'll never know. But it's called a creation 'story' for a reason. The Bible has a lot of stories. Some of them may even be true, or at least based on events that actually transpired. The Ark of the Covenant may be in Eithiopia. Noah's Ark may have been uncovered in Turkey. Whether or not you believe in these stories, it's fascinating to uncover some evidence that the Bible might not have been 100% fiction afterall.

The question is how much is fiction and what if any facts are in it. That is for religious people to ponder over the centuries i suppose. But i'll say this: If you strictly follow the teachings of the Old Testament, then you're a criminal. If you strictly follow the New Testament, then you are insane. So it should be quite clear why neither should be taken literally. If you give the Bible that kind of a pass, then it's hard to base a 'there is no God' argument on the mere implausibility of the events described in it.

Yet, if you insist on doing it, like Dawkins and others have insisted, then it's got to be pretty easy. Today, the Bible looks completely unreasonable, and the only people following it today as 100% truth are also completely unreasonable. Too bad these people represent a shallow minority of all religious people. (Also too bad that a lot of that shallow minority is the loud, politically active religious right in the US. And these people want the creation story taught in school. God knows they won't get that in action.)

To me the archaic, traditional idea of there being a God because it says so in the Bible isn't as offensive as today's rampant misinterpretations of current Bible done to suit differing religious agendas, or as offensive as the omissions and/or editing of gospels done to the original Bible to suit the 'great' religious agenda called the Catholic church, or as offensive as all the Abrahamic religions not getting along, when the purpose of 'one true God' was to unite these freakin' people in the first place. Even if you want to believe, man, we sure made it difficult to see why it would ever be a benefit. But then again, if 'God made in us in his image' or the other way around, it's easier to see why nothing but violence has come from the differing beliefs in Him.

/rambling
  • 0
Posted Image

#1788 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,361 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:25 PM

If we were created with reflection to the Abrahamic God's morals, then he's one evil mofo that answers for a lot of his actions over the years and why we're capable of so much immorality.


The Old Testament is very bloody. Kinda makes sense...
  • 0

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#1789 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:58 PM

I'm of the belief that the original Abrahamic creation story is nothing more than a shorthand of the Enuma Elish the Assyrian version of the same which was an abstraction of the earlier Sumerian epic. Being as Abram was actually a from this part of the world the inclusion makes sense, albeit altered from the original to imply monotheism (though not if you look too closely).

The continued inclusion bespoke millenia of lack of understanding of its root source and the pagan basis of the belief. Simply put, the story needed a beginning and one which was familiar in its core to most people in the Near East. Continuing to believe its veracity in light of the last hundred years of discovery is all on the modern Luddites.


I would be willing to fully concede the origins of the origin story, which would only further my point about how non-original and therefore non-divine, the foundation of 3 intertwined but simultaneously flawed fable based sources of mythology whose dogma and doctrines still affect the vox populi.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1790 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:37 PM

I like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but watching that man describe the drink he created, makes me feel inadequate. It's just ... damn, Neil, you smart.


I personally did not think it was anything all that special or impressive.
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1791 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:38 PM

I personally did not think it was anything all that special or impressive.


Heretic
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1792 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:45 PM

I was watching NovaScience Now, this evening, about what makes humans 'human' and different from other species on this planet. There were some interesting points covered about our evolution.

But one thing in particular stood out for me, profoundly, actually.

And as it relates to this thread and the topic of this thread, it sort of dawned on me that if science is able to turn the creation story(Adam & Eve) on its ear, even more than it has already, mind you, then perhaps science is capable, as a 'worldy' thing, to disprove the foundation of the Islamo-Judeo-Christian religions....since they're all essentially versions of each other.

And what I believe turns the creation story even moreso on its ear, was the proof, the genetic proof in the majority of the world's human population, as a whole, which can be and has been proven to contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.

This means, that the majority of humans today, in fact aren't 100% human.....we're almost all a product of inter-species sexual relations by our fore-fathers, or perhaps fore-mothers.

The only truly 'human' humans are Africans. Yep, their DNA is purer than yours or mine, because they didn't migrate out of Africa, into Asia and Europe, and onwards, they stayed there and continued to develop as modern day humans. Those that went North, towards Europe, evolved into the separate species 'Homo Neanderthalensis'.

Yup, Europeans and Asians are evolution's 'muggles'. Europeans moreso though. Higher muggle-blood factor....

Alright, I await the moving of goalposts and the making of excuses and evidence-less interpretations of so-called interpretations.


The part in bold is not a scientific fact. Please put the goalposts back.
  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1793 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

The part in bold is not a scientific fact. Please put the goalposts back.


So you don't think there's evidence that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis bred with one another, to the point where the majority of the world's population carries part of the Neanderthal DNA?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1794 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:56 PM

I would be willing to fully concede the origins of the origin story, which would only further my point about how non-original and therefore non-divine, the foundation of 3 intertwined but simultaneously flawed fable based sources of mythology whose dogma and doctrines still affect the vox populi.


They aren't original at all. Of course that doesn't stop adherents of claiming theirs was divinely inspired to be protected in perpetuity. The concept of anachronism is lost on that argument.

It was the original sales job. As we are starting to concede (especially with reference to Gobekli Tepe, as I mentioned before) the temple complex seems to have predated any form of civilization including agriculture, animal husbandry or permanent settlements by at least 9000 BCE. What this implies is that it was the original organizers were in fact proto-clergy. How they convinced people to work for their interests in opposition to their own remain unexplained.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1795 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:04 PM

So you don't think there's evidence that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis bred with one another, to the point where the majority of the world's population carries part of the Neanderthal DNA?


Interestingly, there is still more genetic diversity among different African peoples than there is among the whole rest of the population of the world combined as their branches off of the human tree started before that one group that left the continent about 70,000 years ago, even with the inclusion of Neanderthalensis.

Makes me wonder how all of those cracker-ass racists feel knowing that black Africans are more human than they are. Oh, that's right.... they don't science anyway.

/ Actually, DarthNinja, it is in fact known. Genetics will be a major key to unwrapping the whole chain.

Edited by theminister, 11 October 2012 - 06:07 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1796 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

So you don't think there's evidence that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis bred with one another, to the point where the majority of the world's population carries part of the Neanderthal DNA?

Actually, DarthNinja, it is in fact known. Genetics will be a major key to unwrapping the whole chain.


I believe a theory among some scientists exists that suggests interbreeding and recent research has also come to light that cast doubt on this theory.



Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory


When scientists discovered a few years ago that modern humans shared swaths of DNA with long-extinct Neanderthals, their best explanation was that at some point the two species must have interbred.

Now a study by scientists at the University of Cambridge has questioned this conclusion, hypothesising instead that the DNA overlap is a remnant of a common ancestor of both Neanderthals and modern humans.

When the genetic sequence of Homo neanderthalensis was published in 2010, one of the headline findings was that most people outside Africa could trace up to 4% of their DNA to Neanderthals. This was widely interpreted as an indication of interbreeding between Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens just as the latter were leaving Africa. The two species would have lived in the same regions around modern-day Europe, until Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago.

But Andrea Manica said the analysis had over-estimated the amount of shared DNA between Neanderthals and humans that could be explained by interbreeding. The analysis had not taken into account the genetic variation already present between different populations of the ancestors of modern humans in Africa...

http://www.guardian....l-interbreeding


  • 0

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1797 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

I believe a theory among some scientists exists that suggests interbreeding and recent research has also come to light that cast doubt on this theory.


Or you could just publish the whole article. Picking up where you left off....

"The idea is that our African ancestors would not have been a homogeneous, well-mixed population but made of several populations in Africa with some level of differentiation, in the way right now you can tell a northern and southern European from their looks. The mixing is not complete within continents."
Taking these population differences, known as "substructuring", into account for early humans living in Africa, Manica and his colleague Anders Eriksson worked out that modern humans and Neanderthals must have shared a common ancestor some 500,000 years ago and that the subsequent evolution of this species was enough to account for the DNA crossover.
"There was an ancestor of both Neanderthal and modern humans – some archaeologists would call that Homo heidelbergensis – that would have covered Africa and Europe about half a million years ago," he said. "It wouldn't have been a single well-mixed population, it would have been like modern humans – populations that are closer to each other are more similar."
The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
About 350,000 years ago, the European and African ranges of this last common ancestor became separate: the European range would later evolve into Neanderthals and the African range into anatomically modern humans, who left the continent 70,000 years ago to cover the world.
Prof Svante Pääbo, at the Max Planck Institute for EvolutionaryAnthropology in Leipzig, who led the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome in 2010 and has championed the idea that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals, said he was surprised that Manica's work had been published, since his original paper had admitted a role for substructuring in Africa in the sharing of DNA between humans and Neanderthals. "But we regard this as a less parsimonious explanation," he said.
Pääbo has co-authored a paper, which is yet to undergo peer-review, to further support his thesis that humans and Neanderthals did in fact interbreed. "We find that the last gene flow from Neanderthals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present, and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago," he writes. "This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis, and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neanderthals as they expanded out of Africa."



The salient point being that Homo Heidelbergensis, if actually an ancestor, would have shared that same DNA with both populations both in Africa and not.

The dating of the DNA sequence to the time period indicated lines up with exactly what we know already from genetic decoding that the whole of the non-African populations are related to the same tribe that moved off of the continent. Whether H. Heidelbergnsis is a common ancestor or not does not affect the fact of late inclusion of DNA into the European chain.

The question is left not "Did we interbreed?" but "How much of our current DNA is to account for that interbreeding and how much to a common ancestor?"

/ The article you provided also supports the suggestion that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens could in fact interbreed as they would have been related, making it an almost assured scenario.

Edited by theminister, 11 October 2012 - 06:31 PM.

  • 1

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1798 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 11 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

Or you could just publish the whole article. Picking up where you left off....

The salient point being that Homo Heidelbergensis, if actually an ancestor, would have shared that same DNA with both populations both in Africa and not.

The dating of the DNA sequence to the time period indicated lines up with exactly what we know already from genetic decoding that the whole of the non-African populations are related to the same tribe that moved off of the continent. Whether H. Heidelbergnsis is a common ancestor or not does not affect the fact of late inclusion of DNA into the European chain.

The question is left not "Did we interbreed?" but "How much of our current DNA is to account for that interbreeding and how much to a common ancestor?"

/ The article you provided also supports the suggestion that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens could in fact interbreed as they would have been related, making it an almost assured scenario.


I personally am not stating anything definitive either way.

What you state as the article supporting the 'suggestion' (your own word) that there could have been interbreeding; the article is merely quoting the opinion of the original scientist who holds that opinion and further wrote a paper about it, and the article also does clarify that it has yet to be peer-reviewed.

Pääbo has co-authored a paper, which is yet to undergo peer-review, to further support his thesis that humans and Neanderthals did in fact interbreed


So perhaps more accurately, the scientist who opines the 'suggestion' ('championed the idea' or 'his thesis' to quote exactly) that you also suggest, is merely disagreeing with the new research that casts doubt on his own work so as to uphold his own.

You do realize that the very premise of that article is that new research has come to light that casts doubt on the very suggestion you suggest (and maintain)? I believe this is the salient point. Making statements of me of not quoting the entire article does nothing to remove or negate this, and clearly as well as evidently nor does quoting the rest of the article.

This is really the only 'assured' scenario.
  • 1

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1799 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,395 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:18 PM

I personally am not stating anything definitive either way.

What you state as the article supporting the 'suggestion' (your own word) that there could have been interbreeding; the article is merely quoting the opinion of the original scientist who holds that opinion and further wrote a paper about it, and the article also does clarify that it has yet to be peer-reviewed.


Manica himself admits,

"So, if any hybridisation occurred -- it's difficult to conclusively prove it never happened -- then it would have been minimal and much less than what people are claiming now."

http://www.afp.com/e...als-didnt-breed

Manica freely admits it is entirely likely. That's not in debate. Their work does not address the circa 70,000 BCE genetic entry into Europeans and they know it.

Of course the original author must submit a counter paper to Manica's to note that the speciation and sub-structuring had already had included in the original paper as a factor and didn't explain the totality of the genetic variation as an all or nothing question.

You do realize that the very premise of that article is that new research has come to light that casts doubt on the very suggestion you suggest (and maintain)? I believe this is the salient point. Making statements of me of not quoting the entire article does nothing to remove or negate this, and clearly as well as evidently nor does quoting the rest of the article.

This is really the only 'assured' scenario.


Posted Image


It is known that we share a significant portion of our DNA with Neanderthals.
It is known that we lived in the same spots at the same times for 30,000 years.
It is known we are close enough genetically to breed with them willingly or not.
It is known humans will mate with animals.

You are free to draw your own conclusions if you'd like.

Edited by theminister, 11 October 2012 - 09:25 PM.

  • 2

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#1800 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 11 October 2012 - 09:34 PM

I personally am not stating anything definitive either way.

What you state as the article supporting the 'suggestion' (your own word) that there could have been interbreeding; the article is merely quoting the opinion of the original scientist who holds that opinion and further wrote a paper about it, and the article also does clarify that it has yet to be peer-reviewed.



So perhaps more accurately, the scientist who opines the 'suggestion' ('championed the idea' or 'his thesis' to quote exactly) that you also suggest, is merely disagreeing with the new research that casts doubt on his own work so as to uphold his own.

You do realize that the very premise of that article is that new research has come to light that casts doubt on the very suggestion you suggest (and maintain)? I believe this is the salient point. Making statements of me of not quoting the entire article does nothing to remove or negate this, and clearly as well as evidently nor does quoting the rest of the article.

This is really the only 'assured' scenario.



Neanderthals bred with modern humans outside Africa 37,000 years ago

Published: Friday, Oct 5, 2012, 17:57 IST
Place: Washington, DC | Agency: ANI



Harvard and Max Planck Institute scientists have estimated the date when Neanderthals and modern Europeans last shared ancestors to explain why Neanderthals are most closely related to people outside Africa

It suggests that interbreeding occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neanderthals as they expanded out of Africa

When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010 it revealed that people outside Africa share slightly more genetic variants with Neanderthals than Africans do.

One scenario that could explain this observation is that modern humans mixed with Neanderthals when they came out of Africa. An alternative, but more complex, scenario is that African populations ancestral to both Neanderthals and modern humans remained subdivided over a few hundred thousand years and that those more related to Neanderthals subsequently left Africa.

Dr Sriram Sankararaman and colleagues measured the length of DNA pieces in the genomes of Europeans that are similar to Neanderthals. Since recombination between chromosomes when egg and sperm cells are formed reduces the size of such pieces in each generation, the Neanderthal-related pieces will be smaller the longer they have spent in the genomes of present-day people.

The team estimate that Neanderthals and modern humans last exchanged genes between 37,000 and 86,000 years ago, well after modern humans appeared outside Africa but potentially before they started spreading across Eurasia.

This suggests that Neanderthals (or their close relatives) had children with the direct ancestors of present-day people outside Africa

The research has been published in the journal PLOS Genetics.

http://www.dnaindia....ars-ago_1749182



The peer reviewing has taken place for the last 2 years, since the findings were published in 2010.

I'm not sure, other than your own religious reasons, why you'd be hostile to these genetic evidences that are reproducable, which is what scientists ensure before they'd put their reputations on the line.

Here's the 2010 findings that you're reffering to.

Humans and Neanderthals Mated, Making You Part Caveman

Clara MoskowitzDate: 06 May 2010 Time: 08:02 AM ET


Many of us are part caveman, according to an analysis of Neanderthal genes, which were sequenced for the first time in a recent study.

The Neanderthal genome offers further evidence that this ancient hominid species mated and interbred with the ancestors of modern humans, scientists say.

"The Neanderthals are not totally extinct," said study leader Svante Pääbo of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "In some of us they live on a little bit."

In fact, between 1 percent and 4 percent of some modern humans' DNA came from Neanderthals, who lived between about 130,000 and 30,000 years ago, the researchers report today.

It took the scientists years to compile this first sequence of the Neanderthal genome, which is now about 60-percent complete. Researchers extracted DNA from the 40,000-year-old bones of three female Neanderthals found in a cave in Croatia. They had to come up with novel techniques to screen out contamination from bacteria and even present-day human DNA.

The feat is a major step forward in piecing together human evolutionary history, experts say.

"Dr. Pääbo's publication of the full Neandertal genome is a watershed event, a major historical achievement," said Gregory Hannon of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Laurel Hollow, N.Y., who helped analyze the newly sequenced genome.

There has been a long-standing controversy over whether or not humans and Neanderthals interbred, but the new analysis offers some of the firmest proof yet that they did mate and share genes.

"We’re able to largely resolve the controversy over whether there was gene flow," said co-researcher David Reich of the Harvard Medical School Department of Genetics. "We think there's very strong evidence that it did occur."

Specifically, the scientists found evidence for Neanderthal genes in the genomes of modern humans in Europe, Asia and Oceania (Papua New Guinea), but not in Africa, meaning that the interbreeding likely took place after ancient humans migrated out of Africa, but before they splintered into many groups heading off in different directions.

"It occurred prior to the divergence, somewhere in the Middle East or northern Africa, at the gateway of Africa." Reich said. "It’s a small but very real proportion of [Neanderthal] ancestry in non-Africans today."

Researchers estimate this interbreeding may have taken place about 60,000 years ago.

These findings are consistent with the results of another recent study, led by a team of anthropologists at the University of New Mexico, which also found evidence for Neanderthal-human interbreeding. This team found excess diversity in the genomes of non-Africans living today that may have been contributed by archaic humans long ago.

It's too early to know what type of effect these Neanderthal genes may have had on the way ancient humans looked or behaved, the researchers say.

The sequenced genes could also help scientists tease out how humans differ from Neanderthals. The researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with modern human and chimpanzee genomes to identify the areas of greatest difference between humans and our closest relatives.

They found some genetic features that are unique to modern humans (and not found in Neanderthals or chimps), including genes involved in cognitive development, skull structure, metabolism, and the skin.

"In all these cases it requires much, much more work," Pääbo said. "This really just hints at what genes one should now study, and I'm sure we and many other groups will be doing that."

The results of the new study are detailed in the May 7 issue of the journal Science.


http://www.livescien...rt-caveman.html



And the main thing that's been asserted is a 1-4% similarity....which is enough to say that many of us aren't 100% Homo Sapien, or made in 'the image of God', as per your religons' accepted 'story'.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.