Author
Topic: Militant Atheist?
(Read 5791 times)

BrownCounty · « **Reply #154 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:01:57 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 04:38:05 PM

i had that album when I was younger.

So did I. There was a skit on there about snowballs. I think called "Revenge".

DunkingDan · « **Reply #155 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:05:07 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 04:38:05 PM

i had that album when I was younger.

I still do along (actually the one I have is title Bill Cosby Is A Very Funny Fellow RIGHT) with several others (actually around 500 lps from the 60's and 70's). I still listen to a lot of vinyl and have started buying it (vinyl) again as I like the sound better. However we recently acquired a CD player that had 8 DAC's per side and it has a better sound than our old CD player as it is closer to a true analog sound.

highVOLtage · « **Reply #156 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:15:49 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 12:01:41 PM

When something evolves, the previous version no longer exists. Man didn't evolve from the apes that we see now. Man evolved from an ape-like animal that no longer exists.

Perhaps someday humans will evolve into eternal spiritual beings who possess a soul and inhabit the heavens beyond earth.
It seems about as unfathomable as single-celled organisms evolving into complex human beings.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #157 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:31:46 PM »

Fuzzykid said 'The Big Bang did not come from nothing. That's another (deliberate?) fallacy perpetrated by superstitious hucksters and religious con-men. ''

In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?

Andre Linde, Professor of Cosmology

A century ago, the creation of the universe was a concept that astronomers as a rule ignored. The reason was the general acceptance of the idea that the universe existed in infinite time. Examining the universe, scientists supposed that it was just a conglomeration of matter and imagined that it had no beginning. There was no moment of "creation"-a moment when the universe and everything in it came into being.

This idea of "eternal existence" fit in well with European notions stemming from the philosophy of materialism. This philosophy, originally advanced in the world of the ancient Greeks, held that matter was the only thing that existed in the universe and the universe existed in infinite time and will exist endlessly. This philosophy survived in different forms during Roman times but in the Late Roman Empire and Middle Ages, materialism went into decline as a result of the influence of the Catholic church and Christian philosophy. It was after Renaissance that materialism began to gain broad acceptance among European scholars and scientists, largely because of their devotion to ancient Greek philosophy.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was the first person to advance the assertion of "the infinite universe" in the New Age. Scientific discoveries, however, invalidated Kant's assertion.

It was Immanuel Kant who, during the European Enlightenment, reasserted and defended materialism. Kant declared that the universe exists for all time and that every probability, however unlikely, should be regarded as possible. Kant's followers continued to defend his idea of an infinite universe along with materialism. By the beginning of 19th century, the idea that the universe had no beginning-that there was never any moment at which it was created-became widely accepted. It was carried into the 20th century through the works of dialectical materialists such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
This notion of an infinite universe fit in very well with atheism. It is not hard to see why. To hold that the universe had a beginning could imply that it was created and that, of course requires a creator-that is, God. It was much more convenient and safer to circumvent the issue by putting forward the idea that "the universe exists for eternity", even though there was not the slightest scientific basis for making such a claim. Georges Politzer, who espoused and defended this idea in his books published in the early 20th century, was an ardent champion of both Marxism and materialism.
Putting his trust in the validity of the "infinite universe" model, Politzer opposed the idea of creation in his book Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie when he wrote:

Quote

The universe was not a created object, if it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede. 3

Politzer supposed that science was on his side in his defense of the idea of an infinite universe. In fact, science was to prove that the universe indeed had a beginning. And just as Politzer himself declared, if there is creation then there must also be a creator.

The Expansion of Universe and the Discovery of the Big Bang
The 1920s were important years in the development of modern astronomy. In 1922, the Russian physicist Alexandra Friedman produced computations showing that the structure of the universe was not static and that even a tiny impulse might be sufficient to cause the whole structure to expand or contract according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. George Lemaitre was the first to recognize what Friedman's work meant. Based on these computations, the Belgian astronomer Lemaitre declared that the universe had a beginning and that it was expanding as a result of something that had triggered it. He also stated that the rate of radiation could be used as a measure of the aftermath of that "something".
The theoretical musings of these two scientists did not attract much attention and probably would have been ignored except for new observational evidence that rocked the scientific world in 1929. That year the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, working at the California Mount Wilson observatory, made one of the most important discoveries in the history of astronomy. Observing a number of stars through his huge telescope, he discovered that their light was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum and, crucially, that this shift was directly related to the distance of the stars from Earth. This discovery shook the very basis of the universe model held until then.
According to the recognized rules of physics, the spectra of light beams travelling towards the point of observation tend towards violet while the spectra of light beams moving away from the point of observation tend towards red. (Just like the fading of a train's whistle as it moves away from the observer) Hubble's observation showed that according to this law, the heavenly bodies were moving away from us. Before long, Hubble made another important discovery; The stars weren't just racing away from Earth; they were racing away from each other as well. The only conclusion that could be derived from a universe where everything moves away from everything else is that the universe constantly "expands".

Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. Eventually he found evidence of the "the Big Bang", a cataclysmic event whose discovery forced scientists to abandon the notion of an infinite and eternal universe.

Hubble had found observational evidence for something that George Lemaitre had "prophesized" a short while ago and one of the greatest minds of our age had recognized almost fifteen years earlier. In 1915, Albert Einstein had concluded that the universe could not be static because of calculations based on his recently-discovered theory of relativity (thus anticipating the conclusions of Friedman and Lemaitre). Shocked by his findings, Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations in order to "make the answer come out right" because astronomers assured him that the universe was static and there was no other way to make his equations match such a model. Years later, Einstein was to admit that his cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career.
Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding led to the emergence of another model that needed no fiddling around with to make the equations work right. If the universe was getting bigger as time advanced, going back in time meant that it was getting smaller; and if one went back far enough, everything would shrink and converge at a single point. The conclusion to be derived from this model was that at some time, all the matter in the universe was compacted in a single point-mass that had "zero volume" because of its immense gravitational force. Our universe came into being as the result of the explosion of this point-mass that had zero volume. This explosion has come to be called the "the Big Bang" and its existence has repeatedly been confirmed by observational evidence.
There was another truth that the Big Bang pointed to. To say that something has zero volume is tantamount to saying that it is "nothing". The whole universe was created from this "nothing". And furthermore this universe had a beginning, contrary to the view of materialism, which holds that "the universe has existed for eternity".

The "Steady-state" Hypothesis

The Big Bang theory quickly gained wide acceptance in the scientific world due to the clear-cut evidence for it. Nevertheless astronomers who favored materialism and adhered to the idea of an infinite universe that materialism seemingly demanded held out against the Big Bang in their struggle to uphold a fundamental tenet of their ideology. The reason was made clear by the English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who said "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me".4
Another astronomer who opposed the Big Bang theory was Fred Hoyle. Around the middle of the 20th century he came up with a new model, which he called "steady-state", that was an extension of the 19th century's idea of an infinite universe. Accepting the incontrovertible evidence that the universe was expanding, he proposed that the universe was infinite in both dimension and time. According to this model, as the universe expanded new matter was continuously coming into existence by itself in just the right amount to keep the universe in a "steady state". With the sole visible aim of supporting the dogma of "matter existed in infinite time", which is the basis of the materialist philosophy, this theory was totally at variance with the "Big Bang theory", which defends that the universe had a beginning. Supporters of Hoyle's steady state theory remained adamantly opposed to the Big Bang for years. Science, however, was working against them.

The Triumph of the Big Bang

Sir Arthur Eddington's statement that "the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of nature was repugnant to him" was an admission of the discomfort that the Big Bang caused for materialists.

In 1948, George Gamov carried George Lemaitre's calculations several steps further and came up with a new idea concerning the Big Bang. If the universe was formed in a sudden, cataclysmic explosion, there ought to be a definite amount of radiation left over from that explosion. This radiation should be detectable and, furthermore, it should be uniform throughout the universe.
Within two decades, observational proof of Gamov's conjecture was forthcoming. In 1965, two researchers by the name of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson chanced upon a form of radiation hitherto unnoticed. Called "cosmic background radiation", it was unlike anything coming from anywhere else in the universe for it was extraordinarily uniform. It was neither localized nor did it have a definite source; instead, it was distributed equally everywhere. It was soon realized that this radiation was the echo of the Big Bang, still reverberating since the first moments of that great explosion. Gamov had been spot-on for the frequency of the radiation was nearly the same value that scientists had predicted it would be. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel prize for their discovery.
In 1989, George Smoot and his NASA team sent a satellite into space. Called the "Cosmic Background Emission Explorer" (COBE), it took only eight minutes for the sensitive instruments on board the satellite to detect and confirm the levels of radiation reported by Penzias and Wilson. These results conclusively demonstrated the existence of the hot, dense form remaining from the explosion out of which the universe came into being. Most scientists acknowledged that COBE had successfully captured the remnants of the Big Bang.

The cosmic background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson is regarded as incontrovertible evidence of the Big Bang by the scientific world.

More evidence for the Big Bang was forthcoming. One piece had to do with the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Observations indicated that the mix of these two elements in the universe was in accord with theoretical calculations of what should have been remained after the Big Bang. That drove another stake into the heart of the steady state theory because if the universe had existed for eternity and never had a beginning, all of its hydrogen should have been burned into helium.
Confronted by such evidence, the Big Bang gained the near-complete approval of the scientific world. In an article in its October 1994 issue, Scientific American noted that the Big Bang model was the only one that could account for the constant expansion of the universe and for other observational results.
Defending the steady-state theory alongside Fred Hoyle for years, Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory was revealed:
There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.

Who Created the Universe From Nothing?
With this triumph of the Big Bang, the thesis of an "infinite universe", which forms the basis of materialist dogma, was tossed onto the scrap-heap of history. But for materialists it also raised a couple of inconvenient questions: What existed before the Big Bang? And what force could have caused the great explosion that resulted in a universe that did not exist before?
Materialists like Arthur Eddington recognized that the answers to these questions could point to the existence of a supreme creator and that they did not like. The atheist philosopher Anthony Flew commented on this point:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only without end but also beginning, it remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang story. 6
Many scientists who do not force themselves to be atheists accept and favor the existence of a creator having an infinite power. For instance, the American astrophysicist Hugh Ross proposes a Creator of universe, Who is above all physical dimensions as:
By definition, time is that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place. No time, no cause and effect. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.7

Objections to Creation and Why They are Flawed

It is patently obvious that the Big Bang means the creation of the universe out of nothing and this is surely evidence of willful creation. Regarding this fact, some materialist astronomers and physicists have tried to advance alternative explanations to oppose this reality. Mention has already been made of the steady state theory and it was pointed out it was clung to, by those who were uncomfortable with the notion of "creation from nothingness", despite all the evidence to the contrary in an attempt to shore up their philosophy.
There are also a number of models that have been advanced by materialists who accept the Big Bang theory but try to exorcise it of the notion of creation. One of these is the "oscillating" universe model; another is the "quantum model of universe". Let us examine these theories and see why they are invalid.
The oscillating universe model was advanced by the astronomers who disliked the idea the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In this model, it is claimed that the present expansion of the universe will eventually be reversed at some point and begin to contract. This contraction will cause everything to collapse into a single point that will then explode again, initiating a new round of expansion. This process, they say, is repeated infinitely in time. This model also holds that the universe has experienced this transformation an infinite number of times already and that it will continue to do so forever. In other words, the universe exists for eternity but it expands and collapses at different intervals with a huge explosion punctuating each cycle. The universe we live in is just one of those infinite universes going through the same cycle.
This is nothing but a feeble attempt to accommodate the fact of the Big Bang to notions about an infinite universe. The proposed scenario is unsupported by the results of scientific research over the last 15-20 years, which show that it is impossible for such an "oscillating" universe idea to come into being. Furthermore the laws of physics offer no reason why a contracting universe should explode again after collapsing into a single point: it ought to stay just as it is. Nor do they offer a reason why an expanding universe should ever begin to contract in the first place.8
Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed. Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every "opening" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing. Even if "open and close" universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be created from "nothing".9
Put briefly, the "oscillating" universe model is a hopeless fantasy whose physical reality is impossible.
The "quantum model of universe" is another attempt to purge the Big Bang of its creationist implications. Supporters of this model base it on the observations of quantum (subatomic) physics. In quantum physics, it is to be observed that subatomic particles appear and disappear spontaneously in a vacuum. Interpreting this observation as "matter can originate at quantum level, this is a property pertaining to matter", some physicists try to explain the origination of matter from non-existence during the creation of the universe as a "property pertaining to matter" and present it as a part of laws of nature. In this model, our universe is interpreted as a subatomic particle in a bigger one.

However this syllogism is definitely out of question and in any case cannot explain how the universe came into being. William Lane Craig, the author of The Big Bang: Theism and Atheism explains why:
A quantum mechanical vacuum spawning material particles is far from the ordinary idea of a "vacuum" (meaning nothing). Rather, a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing.10
So in quantum physics, matter "does not exist when it was not before". What happens is that ambient energy suddenly becomes matter and just as suddenly disappears becoming energy again. In short, there is no condition of "existence from nothingness" as is claimed.
In physics, no less than in other branches of the sciences, there are atheist scientists who do not hesitate to disguise the truth by overlooking critical points and details in their attempt to support the materialist view and achieve their ends. For them, it is much more important to defend materialism and atheism than to reveal scientific facts and realities.
In the face of the reality mentioned above, most scientists dismiss the quantum universe model. C. J. Isham explains that "this model is not accepted widely because of the inherent difficulties that it poses."11 Even some of the originators of this idea, such as Brout and Spindel, have abandoned it.12

Stephen Hawking also tries to advance different explanations for the Big Bang other than Creation just as other Materialist scientists do by relying upon contradictions and false concepts.

A recent and much-publicized version of the quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the Big Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According to Hawking, there was only a 10-43 second "imaginary" time interval before the Big Bang took place and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness" before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary" time.
As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount to zero or non-existence-like the imaginary number of people in a room or the imaginary number of cars on a road. Here Hawking is just playing with words. He claims that equations are right when they are related to an imaginary time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:
In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its physical correlate.13

To put it briefly, a mathematically imaginary or theoretical solution need not have a true or a real consequence. Using a property exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses that are unrelated to reality. But what reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to find the answer to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he prefers alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints at divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose.14
What all this shows is that alternative models to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open and close universe model, and quantum universe models in fact spring from the philosophical prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can even explain "existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that the universe is created by God, a point that materialists utterly reject
An example of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang to be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists by providing them with strong support for their ideas. The author also predicted that the Big Bang would be disproved and that support for it would disappear within a decade.15 Maddox can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent discoveries during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of the existence of the Big Bang.

Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject. The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when he says:

Quote

If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.16

In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science is this: Matter and time have been brought into being by an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. God, the Possessor of almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created the universe we live in.
References:

2. Andrei Linde, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe", Scientific American, vol. 271, 1994, p. 48
3. George Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie, Editions Sociales, Paris 1954 ,p. 84
4. S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator, Regnery Gateway, Chicago, 1980, p. 54
5. Stephen Hawking, Evreni Kucaklayan Karinca, Alkim Publishing, 1993, p. 62-63
6. Henry Margenau, Roy Abraham Vargesse. Cosmos, Bios, Theos. La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing, 1992, p. 241
7. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How Greatest Scientific Discoveries of The Century Reveal God, Colorado: NavPress, revised edition, 1995, p. 76
8. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
9. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
10. William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 20
11. Christopher Isham, "Space, Time and Quantum Cosmology", paper presented at the conference "God, Time and Modern Physics", March 1990, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 27
12. R. Brout, Ph. Spindel, "Black Holes Dispute", Nature, vol 337, 1989, p. 216
13. Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, London: Martin Brian & O'Keefe, 1972, p. 31-32
14. StephenHawking, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 46
15. John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang", Nature, vol. 340, 1989, p. 378
16. H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p. 138

DunkingDan · « **Reply #158 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:35:31 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 12:01:41 PM

When something evolves, the previous version no longer exists. Man didn't evolve from the apes that we see now. Man evolved from an ape-like animal that no longer exists.

Are Humans Unique?

Evolutionary biology proposes that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. If this is true then we are nothing more than glorified apes. However, compared to our closest "relatives", scientific research indicates that humans are unique on many fronts, including creativity, personality, abstract thinking, and moral judgment.

Rich Deem

The Bible makes the claim that humans alone are "created in the image of God."¹ What exactly does this mean? Some have equated the image of God as being the physical characteristics of our bodies that make up the way we look. In fact, the Mormons have taken this interpretation to extreme by saying that God is just an exalted man, who has "a body of flesh and bones."¹ However, the Bible says that both males and females are created in the image of God.² Unless God were a hermaphrodite (having both male and female sexual organs), this phrase could not refer to just physical characteristics. In addition, there are various verses in the Bible that describe God as having non-human physical characteristics, such as feathers and wings.³ Should we think of God as being an overgrown chicken? Certainly not! God is so unlike humans physically, that the Bible often paints word pictures to give us a glimpse of what God is like.
Creativity
So if the "image of God" does not refer to physical characteristics, what does it refer to? It is certainly likely that part of the "image of God" refers to the ability of humans to be creative. Anthropology tells us that sophisticated works of art first appeared in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago,⁴ at the time that moderns humans first appeared. No other species of animal, including the apes, are able to create and understand images of art and drawing.
Consciousness
Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a recent article:

Quote

When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.⁵

Personality
Another thing that makes humans unique is personality. According to Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at New York University:

Quote

"We have no idea how our brains make us who we are. There is as yet no neuroscience of personality. We have little understanding of how art and history are experienced by the brain. The meltdown of mental life in psychosis is still a mystery. In short, we have yet to come up with a theory that can pull all this together."⁶

Abstract thinking
Is the human brain that much different from that of our closest "relatives," the chimpanzees? According to Daniel J. Povinelli, from the University of Louisiana's New Iberia Research Center

Quote

"Humans constantly invoke unobservable phenomena and variables to explain why certain things are happening. Chimps operate in the world of concrete, tangible things that can be seen. The content of their minds is about the observable world."⁷

Insight into how chimpanzees really think can be seen in some recent experiments performed by Dr. Povinelli. In these experiments, the researchers used the chimps' natural begging gesture to examine how they really think about their world. They confronted the chimps with two familiar experimenters, one offering a piece of food and the other holding out an undesirable block of wood. As expected, the chimps had no trouble distinguishing between the block and the food and immediately gestured to the experimenter offering the food. Next, the researchers wanted to see if the chimps would be able to choose between a person who could see them and a person who could not. If the chimpanzees understood how other animals see, they would gesture only to the person who could see them. The researchers achieved the "seeing/not-seeing" contrast by having the two experimenters adopt different postures. In one test, one experimenter wore a blindfold over her eyes while the other wore a blindfold over her mouth. In the other tests, one of the experimenters wore a bucket over her head, placed her hands over her eyes or sat with her back turned to the chimpanzee. All these postures were modeled after the behaviors that had been observed during the chimpanzees' spontaneous play. The results of the experiments were astonishing. In the tests involving blindfolds, buckets and hands over the eyes--the apes entered the lab and paused but then were just as likely to gesture to the person who could not see them as to the person who could. In several cases, the chimps gestured to the person who could not see them and then, when nothing happened, gestured again, as if puzzled by the fact that the experimenter did not respond. In the case of experimenters facing with their backs to the chimps, they performed as if they knew that those facing way from them could not see and offer them food. However, subsequent experiments proved that the chimps had merely responded to conditioning from the initial experiments, since they had only received food from those experimenters who faced them. This was proven by having experimenters facing away from the chimps, but then turning to look over their shoulders. The chimps were just as likely to gesture to the experimenters facing away as the one who turned to look at them. Chimpanzees have no clue that humans must face them in order to see. It is obvious from these experiments that chimpanzees lack even a simple understanding of how their world works, but merely react to conditioning from directly observable events.⁸
Other researchers have noted that chimpanzees do not understand the cause and effect of their actions. Apes will climb onto a box to reach fruit, but if the box is absent, will place on the ground beneath the fruit a sheet of paper and stand upon it.⁹
A more recent study examined the ability of human infants and young chimpanzees to help human adults.¹⁰ 18-month-old human infants and young chimpanzees were presented with four categories of problems: out-of-reach objects, access thwarted by a physical obstacle, achieving a wrong (correctable) result, and using a wrong (correctable) means. While human infants could perform all four tasks, chimpanzees could only perform the first task. As in previous studies, chimpanzees were unable to discern when an individual failed at a simple task and how he could help. The researchers concluded:

Quote

"A number of theorists have claimed that human beings cooperate with one another and help one another (especially non-kin) in ways not found in other animal species (26–28). This is almost certainly so, and the current results demonstrate that even very young children have a natural tendency to help other persons solve their problems, even when the other is a stranger and they receive no benefit at all."¹⁰

Body, soul, spirit
Besides the rather obvious differences in the way animals process information in their brains, the Bible (and science) confirm that there are major differences in the ways humans make moral judgments (animals don't make such judgments, as we shall see). Part of what is meant by the term "in the image of God" can be found in chapters immediately following its first usage (Genesis 1) in the Bible. Both Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden. Such a personal relationship is not described, nor seen, for any other animal species. It is the presence of a spirit that was instilled into humans¹¹ that separates us from the animals. There are three kinds of life that God has created in this universe:

[th]Creature:[/th] [th]Examples:[/th]
Body only	Lower life forms, including reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates
Body and soul	From the Hebrew nephesh, or soulish creatures, including birds and mammals
Body, soul and spirit	Humans¹² and angels

The soul is best described as the characteristics that make up the advanced brain, including mind, will and emotion. Only birds and mammals exhibit these characteristics, which is why humans can form mutual relationships with birds and mammals.
Spirit
The spirit is that part of humans that is able to love and experience God directly.¹³ It is found in no other animal species, since no other species can experience God or form a relationship with Him.¹⁴ Is there any evidence that humans possess a spirit? Recent attempts have been aimed at trying to identify the part of the brain involved in "religious" experiences. Unfortunately, the current studies are restricted to an examination of meditative experiences,¹⁵ since the specific subjects used in the research were Tibetan Buddhist meditators. During meditation, the goal is to completely divorce oneself from external sensory stimulation. The ability to do so, apparently leads to some sense of "oneness with the universe", since the brain is deprived of sensory input while still remaining active.
The leaders of these studies, Andrew Newberg M.D., Eugene G. D'Aquili Ph.D., and Vince Rause, claim to have discovered the biological basis for belief in God.¹⁶ However, according to Daniel Batson, a University of Kansas psychologist:

Quote

"The brain is the hardware through which religion is experienced. To say the brain produces religion is like saying a piano produces music."¹⁵

The problem with the theory is that such "religious" experiences do not apply to Christianity, although Newberg tries to make the connection through the reported experiences of a few Christian mysticists. The plain fact is that Christianity does not teach any kind of meditation that leads to the kind of experiences taught in the Eastern religions. Even in prayer, I have never experienced the kind of things described as occurring during Buddhist meditation. God does answer my prayers, but the answer is in the form of fully formed, specific ideas - not any kind of "oneness with the universe". Any kind of non-specific feelings would be completely useless, since it does not provide advice that would be necessary to help one's spiritual walk with God.
Even if there were an area of the brain that might be involved in religious experiences, this idea does not prove that God is a creation of our brains. If God did create us, we would expect that He would provide a means by which we could experience Him. This area of the brain might be part of God's design to make us realize that we are more than just physical creatures. The Bible says that God has given us this knowledge of eternity, possibly involving some sort of "hard-wired" knowledge.¹⁷
Moral judgments
After Adam and Eve had sinned, they became like God in that they could distinguish good from evil.¹⁸ The ability to make moral judgments is also a characteristics that is found only in humans. Even the higher apes cannot make moral judgments about the behavior of other animals. As Dr. Jerome Kagan points out in Three Seductive Ideas, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another."¹⁹ In addition, there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt.²⁰ Recent studies have also shown that only humans, among the primates, are capable of certain forms of sin. Although a chimpanzee will exact revenge against another chimpanzee that steals food from him, they are not spiteful, no matter how researchers tried to elicit the response.²¹ Even dominant male chimpanzees will not punish or prevent a chimpanzee from stealing food from another. Christianity says humans alone are in need of redemption because of their sin.
Social skills and learning
An experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that humans have special skills in social cognition.²² Two and one half year old human toddlers were tested against adult chimpanzees and orangutans for cognitive abilities in spatial, quantitative, and causality processing, along with social cognitive abilities in social learning, communication, and theory of mind (gaze following and understanding intentions). Although toddler humans and adult apes had about the same capabilities in spatial observation, counting, and causality, humans were far superior in areas of social cognition. In social learning, humans averaged close to 100%, whereas apes averaged less than 5%. The study discredits the general intelligence hypothesis that human cognition differs from that of apes only in general cognitive processes such as memory, learning, or perceptual processing. Immature human brains operate quite differently from those of mature apes, suggesting that there are some fundamental differences in the structure and/or function of human brains. Evolutionary theory would claim that these markedly enhanced social skills were just due to some random mutations that conferred some kind of survival advantage, even though the supposed ancestors of human beings lived in habitats similar to those of the great apes. However, the Bible says that humans were designed to be different from all other animals, especially in their ability to excel at social learning and communication.
Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems likely that "in the image of God" refers to the characteristics of the human spirit and the ability to make moral judgments - things that are not found in any animal species, even those to whom we are said to be closely related. Even evolutionists are beginning to recognize the uniqueness of human beings. Dr. Ian Tattersall, in Becoming Human - Evolution and Human Uniqueness, says humans represent a "totally unprecedented entity" on Earth, and "Homo sapiens is not simply an improved version of its ancestors - it's a new concept." It is the ability to make moral judgments that convinces us of our inability to "measure up" to the intended moral standards laid down by God.²³ However, it is the spirit of man that allows us to communicate with God's Spirit through Jesus Christ²⁴ so that we can once again be in fellowship with a Holy God²⁵ and experience the ultimate relationship in the universe.

[font=&quot, serif]References [/font][/color][font=&quot, serif]

[/font][/color][/url]
1.   "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." (D&C 130:22)
"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."
Accordingly, Temple Mormons can progress to Godhead, just as God the Father did:
"If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give his children (see D&C 14:7)."
"These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods."
Gospel Principles, 1997. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, Chapter 47 "EXALTATION".
2.   So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)
3.   Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in you my soul takes refuge. I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed. (Psalm 57:1)
I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge... He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. (Psalm 91:2-4)
4.   Klein, R.G. 1992. Evolutionary Anthropology 1: 5-14.
Balter, M. 1999. Restorers reveal 28,000-year-old artworks. Science 283: 1835.
5.   Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
6.   Horgan, J. 1999. The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation
Horgan, J. 2000. The Undiscovered Mind. HMS Beagle, BioMedNet 71: essay (requires free registration).
7.   Tuma, R.S. 2000. Thinking Like a Chimp. HMS Beagle, BioMedNet 90: feature 2 (requires free registration).
8.   Povinelli, D.J. 1998. Animal Self-Awareness: A Debate Can Animals Empathize? Scientific American.
9.   A. M. Woodbury. 1951 Natural Philosophy, Treatise Three, Psychology, III, Ch. 40, Art. 2. Sydney: Aquinas Academy, p. 447.
10.Warneken, F., and M. Tomasello. 2006. Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young Chimpanzees. Science 311: 1301-1303.
11.And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)
12.Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
13.The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (Romans 8:16)
14.Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth? (Ecclesiastes 3:21)
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
15.Vedantam, S. 2001. Of mind and spirit from the Washington Post.
16.Newberg, A., E.G. D'Aquili, and V. Rause. 2001. Why God Won't Go Away : Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
17.He [God] has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) For evidence that God has put this knowledge of Him into even primitive cultures, see Eternity in their Hearts by Don Richardson
18.Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- (Genesis 3:22)
19.Kagan, J. 1998. Three Seductive Ideas. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674890337.
20.Shweder, R.A. 1999. Humans Really Are Different. Science 283: 798.
21.Keith Jensen, Josep Call, and Michael Tomasello. 2007. Chimpanzees Are Vengeful But Not Spiteful. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 13046-50.
22.Riedl, K., K. Jensen, J. Call, and M. Tomasello. 2012. No third-party punishment in chimpanzees Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 1203179109v1-201203179.
23.Herrmann, E., J. Call, M. V. Hernández-Lloreda, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. 2007. Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis Science 317: 1360-1366.
24.For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. (Romans 7:19)
25.For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Romans 7:22-25)
26.What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)

DunkingDan · « **Reply #159 on:** November 09, 2017, 05:45:42 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on Today at 01:01:41 PM

Quote

When something evolves, the previous version no longer exists. Man didn't evolve from the apes that we see now. Man evolved from an ape-like animal that no longer exists.

Human descent with modification (human evolution) is going to stand or fall on the results of genomic Determining the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequencing. The The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome was first released in 2000.¹ Prior to that time, Determining the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequencing of individual Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes had indicated that humans and Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzees were about 98.5% identical. However, closer examination of the entire All the DNA contained within species of organisms, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes revealed that the 1.4% differences in coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences were not reflected in the DNA that does not carry the information necessary to make a protein.non-coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences (originally called junk DNA), which differed by a much larger 3.4%, for a total difference of nearly 5%.² Originally, it had been thought that coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences would provide the answer to the question of why humans are so different from their closest living ancestors. However, the last few years of research strongly suggest that the DNA that does not carry the information necessary to make a protein.non-coding The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences, which control how the Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes are expressed, makes us human. Although it was originally thought that 97% of human Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA was "junk," an analysis of a large amount of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome in 2007 revealed that the vast majority of the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence was transcribed³ - a result that was completely unexpected.

The Y chromosome

The human (and most other mammalian species) One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome contains the sex-determining The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene SRY, which determines testes development. Evolutionary theory states that the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome evolved from the One of the two sex chromosomes, carried by males (1 copy) and females (2 copies) in mammals.X chromosome some 300-160 million years ago, primarily during the evolution of mammals. Since that time, the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome has been losing Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes, until it now contains only ~86 Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes (compared with ~2,000 for the One of the two sex chromosomes, carried by males (1 copy) and females (2 copies) in mammals.X chromosome). Much of the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome consists of palindromes of The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences. Fertilization of an egg with an x-sperm produces a female, whereas fertilization of an egg with an y-sperm produces a male. Unlike Referring to any chromosome other than a sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes.autosomal Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes, the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome does not recombine with its One of the two sex chromosomes, carried by males (1 copy) and females (2 copies) in mammals.X chromosome partner, except under rare circumstances, and mostly near the A region of repetitive DNA at the end of chromosomes, which is involved in replication and protects the end of the chromosome from destruction.telomere.
The surprising finding of the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is that it contains only two-thirds the number of Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes compared with the human One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome.⁴ Fully 30% of the human One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome contains no analogous region on the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee counterpart. In addition, the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome contains less than half the protein-coding Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes of the human counterpart, even though it contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human. Even the parts of the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y Chromosomes that are analogous are arrange in a completely different manner.⁴
Reactions to the study
Scientists have been rather surprised at the differences seen between the human and Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome. Christine Disteche (University of Washington) said, "It's expected that they are going to be more different than the rest of the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome, but the extent of it is pretty amazing."⁵ According to the authors of the study, "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene content in Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in Referring to any chromosome other than a sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes.autosomal The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."⁴ David Page (program leader at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research) said, "It looks like there's been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome in the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee and human lineages."⁵ He also called the Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes, "horrendously different from each other."⁵ The only thing that makes the difference "horrendous" is the fact that it doesn't fit the evolutionary paradigm.
Conclusion

Although previous genetic studies had suggested that human- Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee differences were greater than first thought, the latest Determining the order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequencing data is a bombshell. The human One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome is dramatically different from that of our "nearest living relative," the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee - up to 50% different. The The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is so different, that if it had occurred in an Referring to any chromosome other than a sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes.autosomal One of the threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosome, such a change would represent that seen between chickens and humans over a period of 310 million years. Described as being "horrendously different," the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence change is virtually unexplainable over the 6-7 million years between the hypothesized chimp-human split.

1.   Completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome (June 26, 2000).
2.   Britten, R.J. 2002. Divergence between samples of Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee and human is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 13633-16335.
3.   The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447: 799-816.
4.   Hughes, J.F. et al. 2010. Chimpanzee and human Y Threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene content. Nature doi:10.1038/nature08700.
5.    Buchen, L. 2010. The fickle One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome. Nature doi:10.1038/463149a.

P1tchBlack · « **Reply #160 on:** November 09, 2017, 06:23:25 PM »

Scientists have been rather surprised at the differences seen between the human and Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.

Like I said, humans didn't evolve from animals alive today. Nor did they evolve from neanderthals because, as stated above, when something evolves, the previous version goes extinct.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #161 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:00:52 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 06:23:25 PM

Scientists have been rather surprised at the differences seen between the human and Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.

Like I said, humans didn't evolve from animals alive today. Nor did they evolve from neanderthals because, as stated above, when something evolves, the previous version goes extinct.

Not necessarily and I have already posted on the actual descent of man

DunkingDan · « **Reply #162 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:03:45 PM »

Fuzzkid likes Australopithecus

ccording to numerous newspaper articles,¹ the missing link between humans and apes, Australopithecus sediba, has been found by paleontologists in South Africa. However, the scientists who made the discovery and published the research on it are not quite so confident about where the new fossil fits in the hominid "family tree." In fact, the bones do not represent a logical sequence of "evolution" from the ape-like Australopithecines to the more human-like Homo erectus. Realistically, Australopithecus sediba looks more like a specialized ape that had no contribution to humankind.
Human family tree?
Numerous discoveries have been made that show that hominin species represented a diverse collection of animals over the last 4 million years. Although originally envisioned as a tree, these discoveries show that the "family tree" is more like a bush or hedge, with the different species belonging to seemingly separate branches. One of the biggest puzzles for paleontologists has been the evolution of the genus Homo from the genus Australopithecus, since there are dramatic differences between the two genera (brain size, overall height and numerous bones associated with bipedalism). Hence paleontologists have been looking for the "missing link" of human evolution.

Hand comparison—Not to scale

Missing link?
A new species of Australopithecine, Australopithecus sediba, consisting of two partial, but well-preserved skeletons, was discovered in 2008 in Malapa cave in South Africa. After painstaking preparation and documentation, the initial studies of the fossils have been published in the journal Science.² The creature is a curious combination of primitive ape, with a small brain (420 cc), long arms, a small body, and a narrow birth canal, but with Homo-like features consisting of short fingers, a long thumb, and composite foot. The rock in which the skeletons were found has been dated to ~2 million years ago—between the dates for the Australopithecine and Homo species.

A. sediba's long thumb

Although Australopithecus sediba, falls into the right time frame to be a "missing link" it is not an intermediate between Australopithecus and Homo. Overall, Australopithecus sediba exhibits primitive features characteristic of other Australopithecines. The brain size is even smaller than an average Australopithecine, and only marginally larger than that of a chimpanzee. The creature has anatomy characteristic of tree-dwelling apes—long arms coupled with curved fingers and a heal designed for climbing, along with small body size. However, the creature had small fingers similar to humans and a longer thumb.³ Even so, the thumb is not intermediate between chimpanzees and modern humans, but actually much longer than that of modern humans relative to finger size (see graph to right and picture above). Why Australopithecus sediba had such long thumbs is unknown. Study author Lee Berger speculated that Australopithecus sediba had evolved its unusual hand in order to use tools, although no such tools have been recovered from the Malapa site.

A. sediba pelvis

Researchers unearthed two partial pelves of Australopithecus sediba, which are shown reconstructed (right, reconstructed portions in white). Like the rest of the Australopithecus sediba skeleton, each pelvis of the two specimens represent a curious combination of Australopithecine and Homo attributes. The pelvis is still small relative to humans, but has some characteristics found in the genus Homo. However, since much of the rest of the skeletons suggest Australopithecus sediba was adapted to both arboreal and terrestrial bipedal means of locomotion, these findings are not surprising. Current theories on the evolution of the human pelvis claim that the evolution of the pelvis was primarily driven by the need for large birth canal to birth large-brained babies. However, since Australopithecus sediba was very small brained, natural selection could not act on a trait that did not yet exist. Not to be phased by the contradiction, the study authors claim that some unspecified requirement of bipedalism was driving the evolution of the Australopithecus sediba pelvis.
The publication on the skull of Australopithecus sediba is an amazingly speculative piece. What is truly amazing is that the article survived peer review in its final form. It talks about "neurons," "neural reorganization," "neural morphogenesis," and "neural interconnectivity" even though there were no neural remains at all. What the researchers did was to do a virtual endocast of the brain case to get the putative shape of the brain. The problem with such a study is that they did a very limited comparison to the crania of other Australopithecines, most of which were much less well preserved and complete than their pristine fossil. Was this a fair comparison? Probably not. Even though the brain size was smaller than the average Australopithecine, study authors concluded that the "results are consistent with gradual neural reorganization of the orbitofrontal region in the transition from Australopithecus to Homo." Amazing!
Conclusion

The discovery of a putative new species of a new species of Australopithecine, Australopithecus sediba is indeed a remarkable fossil find. However, what is even more remarkable than the fossils is how the referees at Science let the study authors speculate so freely about the implications of the find in relation to human evolution. It's almost as if the magazine is so desperate to find something linking the genera Homo and Australopithecus that they allowed wishful thinking into the publication articles. Rather then being a "missing link" in the human family tree it would appear that Australopithecus sediba is yet another species in the hedge that defines the hominins.

Evonne Barry. Melbourne researchers uncover missing link, Herald Sun, September 9, 2011.
Dan Vergano. 2-million-year-old fossils raise hope over 'missing link,' USA TODAY, September 8, 2011.
Robert Williams. South African Fossil May be the Human ‘Missing Link’, Kozmedia News, Sep 12, 2011
Special Collection: Australopithecus sediba, Science,, September 9, 2011
Kivell, T. L., J. M. Kibii, S. E. Churchill, P. Schmid and L. R. Berger. 2011. Australopithecus sediba Hand Demonstrates Mosaic Evolution of Locomotor and Manipulative Abilities. Science 333:1411-1417.
Carlson, K. J., D. Stout, D., T. Jashashvili, D. J. de Ruiter, P. Tafforeau, K. Carlson, Lee R. Berger. 2011. The Endocast of MH1, Australopithecus sediba. Science 333: 1402-1407..
Kibii, J. M., S. E. Churchill, P. Schmid, K. J. Carlson, N. D. Reed, D. J. de Ruiter, and L. R. Berger. 2011. A Partial Pelvis of Australopithecus sediba. Science 333: 1407-1411..

P1tchBlack · « **Reply #163 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:23:01 PM »

If God created man, and God created animals, one has to wonder why he would create all of these in between species.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #164 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:26:25 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 07:23:01 PM

If God created man, and God created animals, one has to wonder why he would create all of these in between species.

A newly discovered chapter in the Book of Genesis has provided the answer to "Where do pets come from?" Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the garden, you walked with me everyday. Now I do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it is difficult for me to remember how much you love me."

      And God said, "No problem! I will create a companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself."

      And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and he wagged his tail. And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal."

      And God said, "No problem! Because I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG."

      And Dog lived with Adam and was a companion to him and loved him. And Adam was comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail.

      After a while, it came to pass that Adam's guardian angel came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and he believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but perhaps too well."

      And the Lord said, "No problem! I will create for him a companion who will be with him forever and who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration."

      And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not the supreme being. And Adam learned humility.

      And God was pleased.
      And Adam was greatly improved.
      And Dog was happy.
      And the Cat didn't give a hoot one way or the other.

P1tchBlack · « **Reply #165 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:30:06 PM »

I'm pretty sure that cats were the creation of Satan.

DunkingDan · « **Reply #166 on:** November 09, 2017, 07:34:06 PM »

Quote from: P1tchBlack on November 09, 2017, 07:30:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that cats were the creation of Satan.

Mine say Nah they are little angels, LOL

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Militant Atheist?

BrownCounty

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

highVOLtage

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

P1tchBlack

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

P1tchBlack

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?

P1tchBlack

Re: Militant Atheist?

DunkingDan

Re: Militant Atheist?