Why do men have nipples?

[Amill]

What I meant to say is that atheists use evolution to escape the idea of religion and not the contrary.

Umm, no.

Many of us even believed in Evolution before we became atheists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Tarkeabdo,

FYI, I'm just waiting on you to finish responding to post #230. No hurry at all, but just to let you know.

 

[tarekabdo12]

....and this guy is studying medicine??????
(god) help us all!

You are here to give explanations and share a discussion or to annoy others? If you want to say something related to the discussion, nobody can hinder you but don't go on babbling.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Ok, so why are you posting material from one guy who disagrees, as if that's a meaningful rebuttal?

AS he gives rationalization 4 what he says

What's lacking in your opinion? What sort of fossil would make you go "Ah, now the case for human/primate common ancestry is compelling"?

I said the current fossils don't have anything intermediate to show. That's what I see but it's not my buisness if somebody has another opinion.

Again, because the Australopithecines are very close (time-wise) to the last common ancestor of humans and chimps, we expect them to show mostly primitive characteristics, with only a few hints of more modern characteristics. As we move forward in time and start seeing members of the genus Homo, we start to see fewer/less primitive traits, and more/more modern traits, which is exactly what you agreed is predicted by human/primate common ancestry.

They aren't very close, they are another primate and I won't repeat my words

Except they're not like chimps and orangutans. If they were, we would call them chimps and orangutans.

So, they r another primate different from both apes and humans and not intermediate-as Oxnard interpreted-.

Again, you're dodging questions. Why? I thought you promised me you were in this discussion in good faith?

I am not dodgig but I can't understand exactly the aim of the question, I tried to answer according to my understanding as i don't know what's going inside ur mind.

So again, what would it mean to you personally if it turns out humans shared a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates? Would that change your religious views at all? Could you still be a Muslim? Would you have to go to a different Mosque? What would your friends and family say if you told them you were an "evolutionist"? Would you have to hide it from them?

I disagree with evolution as a theory not because it affects my religion

But none of the unknowns you posted have anything at all to do with our ability to determine if Australopithicenes belong on our family tree. They're all about secondary (at best) issues. So why did you post them?

I don't understad which post

And you still haven't answered if you think the following is a better interpretation of the fossils than evolutionary theory.

So did this god create Sahelanthropus tchadensis, decide he didn't like it, wipe it out, and then create a little bit different Ardipithecus? And then he didn't like that either, so he wiped them out and created a bunch of Australopithicene species, each a little different than the others? But then he didn't like those either, so he wiped all of them out and created H. habilis? And then he was bored with that, so he killed all them and created H. erectus, which were slightly different than habilis? And then after a while, he decided to kill off erectus and created a slightly different species, H. heidelbergensis? But then he tired of them, so he killed them and created the first H. sapiens, which were only slightly different than heidelbergensis? And just for kicks, he created the slightly different H. neanderthalensis alongside sapiens, but then for whatever reason he just killed them off leaving just H. sapiens?​

God created rules in this life, if the conditions around an animal become inconvenient the animal extincts. This extinction doesn't mean that God wiped them because he hates them . As what occurs from humans when they promote animal extinction by their spoiled behavior. And what difference did the extinction affect life on earth? nothing happened.

If you're just going to keep dodging questions, bringing up side issues, and copying from websites, what's the point in continuing? That's not really anything we can call a "conversation" is it?

I am not dodgig and I don't need to do so, if i was doing so i wouldn't have continued the dialogue 4 this long duration. I couldn't summarize the video as I found that the lecturer used visual illustration that i couldn't explain using words, it was so hard.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Umm, no.

Many of us even believed in Evolution before we became atheists.

If that's right so you need to reconsider your principles-as I see-.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I'm going to need you to give me a delineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution, then, since everything we know about biology today indicates that no such thing exists.

u'd better show me this delineation.

What would be sufficient? You seem hell-bent on disbelieving, so why don't you give us an idea of what data could be presented that you would consider sufficient?

The transition from man to apes require the prsence of a myriad series of fossils that carry gradually changing characters from apes to man, a gradual increas in the size of the skull, etc and not using another primate that differs from both apes and humans

Old member, actually. Died out three million years ago.
But the thing is, they show traits that are similar to humans, and similar to chimpanzees (chimps being our closest relatives, genetically speaking). Then another organism was found that was similar to a. afarensis, less similar to chimpanzees, and more similar to humans. Then another following that same trend. Then another. Then another. We've found a lot of organisms following this trend.
Taken by itself, A. Afarensis would indeed be a meaningless find in terms of human evolution, but in the context of everything else its role in human evolution becomes more clear.

I've alredy give rationalization before

Here's what you need to understand about scientific theories, and if you really go into medicine I hope this is something you pick up on because otherwise you're going to end up killing people: nothing can ever be proven with 100% certainty. There's a margin of error on the fact that I'm typing this right now. The goal, therefore, is to come up with the best explanation for the available facts, which is called a "hypothesis". When a hypothesis is able to explain all available evidence and is contradicted by none of it, it is regarded as a "theory".
To use an example you might be familiar with, imagine that a patient comes to you and is sick. You can't prove that the patient has a certain disease with 100% certainty, but you need to come up with something that explains their symptoms so you can treat them. If you wait for 100% certainty which you can never have, you can never treat the patient and they will die. It's the same with evolution. We don't know anything about our ancestry with 100% certainty, but we have a certain body of evidence and the best way to explain it is descent from A. Afarensis or something similar.

But scientific theories do have a evidences that are solid and reliable and doesn't stand on false interpretations and the dreams of the poser. In the way you say, anybody can tell a lie and say it's a theory.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Tarkeabdo,

FYI, I'm just waiting on you to finish responding to post #230. No hurry at all, but just to let you know.

Sorry i was busy

 

[Android]

You are here to give explanations and share a discussion or to annoy others? If you want to say something related to the discussion, nobody can hinder you but don't go on babbling.

If you are indeed studying medicine, I'm assuming you would've done biology 1a and biology 1b in the first year of your degree. Correct?
How did you even pass these topics? Did you write down answers that you disagreed with on your exams?

The point I was making was that I wouldnt go to a doctor If I knew he was disingenuous.

 

[Gunfingers]

u'd better show me this delineation.

You misunderstand. No such delineation exists. There is no "macro" or "micro" evolution. There is only evolution. It's a difference of degrees, not kinds. The degree of population variation that went into evolving lap dogs from wolves (which, if you study breeding and domestication of dogs you can pretty much see happen, and in fact was duplicated over 50 years with foxes) differs only in magnitude from the degree of population variation that led from fish to great apes.
That's why I asked you for the delineation. If you want me to show you something that you consider "macro" evolution you're going to have to tell me how you define "macro".

The transition from man to apes require the prsence of a myriad series of fossils that carry gradually changing characters from apes to man, a gradual increas in the size of the skull, etc and not using another primate that differs from both apes and humans

Okay, here we have your requirements for accepting human evolution. It's all pretty reasonable and falls in line with what one would predict if anticipating a gradual evolution. In this same post you quoted my link to Wikipedia's list of fossils of human evolution, which show a gradual increase in skull size, changing characteristics from older apes to man, and a lack of primates that fit nowhere in between. Your response?

I've alredy give rationalization before

I gave you exactly what you asked for, and you dismissed it out of hand. You didn't even try to explain what about the evidence might be lacking, you just waved it off. Are you actually interested in having a discussion, or are you just going to look at evidence after evidence and say "meh"?

But scientific theories do have a evidences that are solid and reliable and doesn't stand on false interpretations and the dreams of the poser. In the way you say, anybody can tell a lie and say it's a theory.

How, out of that whole big explanation about the need for evidence and adequate explanation of phenomena, did you get the idea that "anyone can tell a lie and say it's a theory"? What part of that made it sound like scientific theories are easy to come by? And what part of all the posts you've read here give you the impression that evolution stands merely on "false interpretations and...dreams"?

 

[Jose Fly]

AS he gives rationalization 4 what he says

So? People who believe the earth is flat give rationalizations for what they say.

I said the current fossils don't have anything intermediate to show. That's what I see but it's not my buisness if somebody has another opinion.

What if it's the opinion of every paleoanthropologist on the planet? Why do you think your opinion is more valid than that of the entire relevant professional community?

They aren't very close, they are another primate and I won't repeat my words

Well that's basically all you've been doing...saying "no they aren't" over and over. We know the first Australopithecines that we find are very close to when the human and chimp lines diverged, yet all you have in rebuttal is "No they aren't"? If that's all you have in response, I'll let that speak for itself.

So, they r another primate different from both apes and humans and not intermediate-as Oxnard interpreted-.

First, Oxnard never said they weren't intermediate; he said they weren't our direct ancestors. He still argued that they belong on the hominid evolutionary tree. Second, why are you clinging so hard to the four decade old work of this one man, and waving away almost all the subsequent work by many, many more professionals? If the opinion of one professional is compelling to you, why aren't the opinions of hundreds more professionals even more compelling?

I disagree with evolution as a theory not because it affects my religion

So how exactly did you arrive at your conclusion that evolutionary theory is wrong? What did you study? Please be specific.

I don't understad which post

In your post #221 you copied a list of unknowns about the Australopithecines from the Smithsonian. But none of those unknowns had anything to do with our ability to determine if they belong on our family tree.

God created rules in this life, if the conditions around an animal become inconvenient the animal extincts. This extinction doesn't mean that God wiped them because he hates them . As what occurs from humans when they promote animal extinction by their spoiled behavior. And what difference did the extinction affect life on earth? nothing happened.

Ok, that answers the extinction part, but what about all the species? Did God create each one of them?

I couldn't summarize the video as I found that the lecturer used visual illustration that i couldn't explain using words, it was so hard.

Then I suggest you don't post something like that. If you don't understand it enough to summarize it and post it in your own words, then you really would have no idea if he's telling you the truth or not.

Sorry i was busy

That's fine, no need to apologize. As I said, I'm in no hurry.

Now, the next set of hominid fossils to discuss are Homo habilis. They are represented by many specimens that date between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. The older specimens are quite similar to later Australopithecines (Au.). Their face remains primitive (prominent brow ridge, small chin), but less so than the Au. The teeth and jaws are more modern than Au. and are intermediate between Au. and modern humans. The older specimens' brain size was ~500 cc, which overlaps the Au., yet the later specimens' brain size was ~800 cc, overlapping H. erectus. They had modern type arched feet, showing they walked erect more similar to modern humans than Au. Yet their arms remained more primitive-like. They also were the first to show the ability to craft and use stone tools.

H. habilis straddles the gap between Au. and H. erectus so well, some argue that they should be split into two species, the older ones belonging in Au. and the later ones in H. erectus.

Again, this is exactly what we agreed we would expect to see under human/primate common ancestry. H. habilis shows a mixture of modern and primitive traits, and continues the trend towards more modern traits as we move forward in time.

 

[camanintx]

Many of us even believed in Evolution before we became atheists.

If that's right so you need to reconsider your principles-as I see-.

Why? Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

 

[camanintx]

However, God in the Qur'an said that He created Adam by his own hands, not by evolution from a monkey.

As a medical student, have you learned about endogenous retroviruses?

 

[tarekabdo12]

Why? Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

I am not against evolution because it contradicts my faith, I'm contradicting it as I'm not convinced by it as a principle.

 

[tarekabdo12]

As a medical student, have you learned about endogenous retroviruses?

yes,I have.

Sverdlov (1998) reports,

But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically.

so I think this has a relation to something else rather than evolution

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views


- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 4 -


In fact, I see that evolutionists escape the clear evident world to ford into a vague unknown pond of knowledge. You can see around you how e the creatures are so intricate and you can't explain the formation of the first cells by random coincidences yet you always wade into the unknown to dodge the lucid facts.

By the way, i don't hate anybody ad i am not here to enter in a debate and win it and feel superior, I'm only looking for the truth and using my mind to find it and if I feel that I'm wrong I'd be glad to admit that.

Sorry for being late but I'd clinical examinations.









​

 

[tarekabdo12]

If you are indeed studying medicine, I'm assuming you would've done biology 1a and biology 1b in the first year of your degree. Correct?
How did you even pass these topics? Did you write down answers that you disagreed with on your exams?

The point I was making was that I wouldnt go to a doctor If I knew he was disingenuous.

I live in Egypt and study in a different way and i don't have to be a dodger. in fact, our professors say that it's very strange that a medical student sees the great intricate design of the human body and doesn't believe that there's a creator.

 

[camanintx]

I am not against evolution because it contradicts my faith, I'm contradicting it as I'm not convinced by it as a principle.

Which doesn't explain why anyone else would have to reconsider their principles.

 

[idav]

I live in Egypt and study in a different way and i don't have to be a dodger. in fact, our professors say that it's very strange that a medical student sees the great intricate design of the human body and doesn't believe that there's a creator.

The complexity of the universe isn't an indication of a designer. What would be an indication is that some type of evidence that suggests the order of such complexity needed some sort of helping hand to come about. From what we can see the human body is a product of its parents and their parents and so on back to the beginning of life.

BTW do you think Adam would have had nipples? Not sure if this has been asked.

 

[camanintx]

yes,I have.

Sverdlov (1998) reports,

But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically.

so I think this has a relation to something else rather than evolution
​

Even if ERV's were prone to insert at the same location in different species, how do you explain that many of them carry the same mutations?

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Part of what makes this such powerful evidence for the evolutionary model is that is that ERV distribution and mutation rely on entirely different mechanisms; the function of integrase and the DNA replication complex, respectively. That the two nested hierarchies match at all is only explicable by common ancestry.

 

[Android]

I live in Egypt and study in a different way and i don't have to be a dodger. in fact, our professors say that it's very strange that a medical student sees the great intricate design of the human body and doesn't believe that there's a creator.

So all medical professors in Egypt are creationists?
That's a shame, I would have liked to visit your country one day. Now I never want to go there, just in case I get sick.

 

[Evolutionary Model]

yes,I have.

Sverdlov (1998) reports,

But although this concept of retrovirus selectivity is currently prevailing, practically all genomic regions were reported to be used as primary integration targets, however, with different preferences. There were identified 'hot spots' containing integration sites used up to 280 times more frequently than predicted mathematically.

so I think this has a relation to something else rather than evolution

Do Shared ERVs Support Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views​

I was made aware of this page by my site stats module, when tarekabdo12 clicked camanintx’s link to my ERV page. I figure, I’ll just jump in:

Jonathan M’s ‘Evolution News & Views’ ERV series was a direct response to my ERV essay. I have since rebutted those posts, in full: Evolution News - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

Honestly, his response series was unoriginal (he mostly summarized quotes he copy/pasted), and just repeated many points I refuted in the essay, without even mentioning my rebuttals.

In any case, I’ll give a brief synopsis of the fault in the quote you provided, tarekabdo12, and expand from there:

The hypothesis that the orthology of the ERVs in question is just insertion homoplasy, resulting from parallel integration in each lineage, has been falsified:

Retroviruses rarely insert in the same spot—0.1% of the time for HIV with a sample of 40,569 in Wang et al. (2007), and less in others, such as Mitchell et al. (2004)—yet the majority of chimpanzee and human ERVs are shared (IHGS Consortium, 2001; CSA Consortium, 2005).

If they were the result of parallel integration in distinct lineages, the ratio would be similarly low. Thus these ERV shared by chimpanzees and humans must have been inherited via sexual reproduction. And since neither contribute to the others’ gene pools, those ancestors must have been of a species ancestral to both.

Also, perpetual bombardment during repeated bifurcation necessarily results in a nested hierarchy. That is the exact pattern shared ERVs are observed to be arranged in.

So are the shared mutation among the 5' and 3' LTRs of shared full-length ERVs. The sequence of divergence indicated by both is further corroborated by the pattern of LTR-LTR discontinuity ratio.

The data is clear; the parallel integration hypothesis is false.


References:

Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. "Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome." Nature 437.7055 (2005 Sep 1): 69-87.

International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. "Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome." Nature 409.6822 (2001 Feb 15): 860-921.

Mitchell, R. S., B. F. Beitzel, A. R. Schroder, P. Shinn, H. Chen, C. C. Berry, J. R. Ecker, and F. D. Bushman. "Retroviral DNA integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV show distinct target site preferences." PLoS Biology 2.E234 (2004).

Wang, G. P., A. Ciuffi, J. Leipzig, C. C. Berry, and F. D. Bushman. "HIV Integration Site Selection: Analysis by Massively Parallel Pyrosequencing Reveals Association with Epigenetic Modifications." Genome Res 17.8 (2007 Aug): 1186-194.