| Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that it's scientifically possible that humans lived for 900 years 10000 years ago? |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
| I'm Muslim and I feel really reassuring about that , because I always find someone " god " to ask him help and also thanks him for my situations ... I think it's really good thing , makes feel that u are not alone. |
Citizeninsane said: If we descended from one gene pool, we would ALL be compatible, but because we have a wide array of genetic diversity, it indicates that we have and originated from a large genetic pool. I've read the Cheetah site now and have a full grasp on the issue you are talking about. but it seems that we understand different things from the article. Quote from the Cheetah article "Females frequently mate with several different males while they are fertile and are then likely to bear a single litter of cubs fathered by multiple males — making many of the cubs within a single litter only half-siblings." ^basically Females take in alot of semen from different sources and then birth a litter of clubs that all may have different fathers. they seem to be able to do this by replacing eggs every time they mate. Quote from the Genetic wiki "They undergo induced ovulation, which means that a new egg is produced every time a female mates. By mating with multiple males, the mother increases the genetic diversity within a single litter of cubs." this special way of mating that they do is the cause of their genetic variation. Quote from the Cheetah article "a population with high levels of genetic variation is much more likely to include at least a few individuals carrying the gene versions that provide protection from the pathogen — and, hence, to evolve in response to the new situation instead of going extinct." ^let the population, in this case, refer to the Cheetah's litter today. when the litter has dna from different fathers, there is more of a chance that one Cub will have the ability to survive. Quote from the Cheetah article "A population with low genetic variation is something of a sitting duck — vulnerable to all sorts of environmental changes that a more variable population could persist through." ^with less diversity(0f the gene pool) in the population (litter), comes less of a chance that one would be able to survive. an example would be female Cheetah that only get sperm from one male. Quote from the Cheetah article "This can probably be attributed to a population bottleneck they experienced around 10,000 years ago, barely avoiding extinction at the end of the last ice age.However, the situation has worsened in modern times. Habitat encroachment and poaching have further reduce cheetah numbers, consequently snuffing out even more genetic variation and leaving cheetahs even more vulnerable to extinction." for some reason, cheetahs have a low levels of genetic variation, which is suspected to have to do with the bottleneck and the recent events like poaching Quote from the Cheetah article "The scientists have found that not only do female cheetahs bear single litters with multiple fathers, but those fathers are rarely near neighbors. Females seem to mate with individuals from far-flung regions, meaning that the cubs' fathers are only distantly related to one another." ^Biologists have also found that Cheetah get semen from across the land. the fathers are rarely ever close to each's area this would explain why many cubs and cheetah across the land would be able to share organs, simply because they are halve-sibling with each other on account of them sharing the same father. what i'm getting at is, the way cheetahs and Humans breed seem to be different. while cheetahs breed by taking in multiple sources of semen and making one litter of mixed origin, humans focus on one partner, maxing their litter usually of the same origin. in Adam and Eve case, they would make multiple off springs which would in turns pair off and make their own off springs. the genetics would become more widespread in the process, partly because of genetic mutation and partly because the original genes of Adam and Even are getting remixed and remodeled to form new genes. basically, if a human mother gives birth to multiple children, each father's dna usually doesn't come from different regions. i can't expected that im closely related to some1 in South Africa (i use Africa for an example because my family is from Nigeria) where as, a cheetah has more of a chance of finding multiple close relatives from different regions because of the structure of how it'smother mates. i also noticed that in the article you linked, it was never stated that all Cheetahs are able to give organs to all other Cheetahs.(meaning they aren't all compatible) though i could have simply not seen that part. i would like it if you could quote it. Citizeninsane said: Also, I said inactivity with the birth rate being at a much older age, sure the Sloths may be inactive, but they also most likely have children at very young ages, thus in terms of their genetic "purpose", they fulfilled their purpose to breed for the species. i still don't see why the mating time/season of an animal would be the sole decider in every species lifespan. i know that this could be true, but genetic "purpose" is a very vague concept and no claim is completely proven to be the reason life exists Citizeninsane said: But if you have a species of e.g. clams or the example I gave, tortoises, these branches of animals tend to favor waiting long periods before having children which along with the fact that they stay inactive, increases their life span since they are still fertile after several centuries. if there is concrete reason that says a species's life expectancy is only dependent on their fertility, i would like a link. otherwise, what you are saying is merely a possibility, like what im saying Citizeninsane said: At this point if you want to say Eve had children at 100+ years, I really have no reply, at this point that is just pure ad hoc speculation and nothing more can be said regarding that sort of assertion. The point is that the human being can start having children at such young ages that the likely-hood of our originating ancestors being somehow long-lived individuals, seems dubious and unlikely. i disagree but my argument was to show that evolution does not directly counter the bible. if you consider it unlikely, that only means you haven't considers it flat out false. sry it took so long, i was very preoccupied. edit: also,sry if have developed a mean tone anywhere, i really don't mean it. its just that im getting sleepy. |
AzuStarJul 28, 2014 5:10 PM
Shiratori99 said: Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that it's scientifically possible that humans lived for 900 years 10000 years ago? no. |
| Azustar Another article on page 2 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/making-a-difference/rare-breed-20811232/?no-ist=&page=2 I still think your not getting the point, if you have ONE gene pool, that is Adam and Eve, solo just the two of them. Their offspring is going to have to inbreed and also share the SAME gene pool, variation would be non-existent. We would be able to skin-graft and organ transplant with EASE. But we cannot, hence my original point. The ABUNDANCE in genetic variation in the human being as it stands now means that we had a LARGE originating gene pool, not just two. If we originated from two ancestors, we most likely would have died as a species due to a lack of genetic variance. Also, I don't regard anything flat out wrong to the extent that I don't know everything and would not consider myself a dogmatic person, since to flat out reject something means to be dogmatic. So, when I say dubious and unlikely, I mean that such a claim or position is a fallacious standpoint and should be reasonably retracted as a position. Furthermore, that is why I said genetic "purpose", the quotes were intentional, and so I am aware of the fact that is vague, I am merely using it in terms and the standards regarding evolution via means of natural selection, not some transcendental philosophical term regarding the meaning of life. |
CitizeninsaneJul 28, 2014 6:57 PM
| Religion isn't bad, but it's used in bad ways. The morals are mostly outdated, misused, or wrong. A lot of passages of the bible now are used for someone's personal goals, not for the better of people. It was supposed to teach better morales, but now certain passages are changed to the point where they often mean the exact opposite of what they originally meant (it was never written that being with the same gender is bad, that part was something else completely originally, and was mistranslated and taken way too far.) |
| I didn't come here to play, I came to win. Now lets play. |
| Religion can be good if used right and in moderation. Those super Christians are a pain in the ass but those who just follow the good values and ask themselves what is the right course of action from time to time basing on their religion will probably have quite a fulfilling life as there is a lot of good lessons to be learned from many religious text and teachings. Its just unfortunate that most modern societies seem to think religion is a free card to start murdering each other and just getting the bad messages out of whats supposed to be a peaceful teaching. Like I hear the Quran preaches peace to the peaceful, and war to the aggressors. It teaches to respond when you are attacked. But stops aggression and wants peace to make peace. and not to aggress anybody who is peaceful. You see I like that, thats a good message its not a lay down and take whatever anyone wants to give you but be peaceful. Its like Liam neason in Taken, if you don't provoke he will be a nice guy, fuck with him and there will be no mercy. Thats a message we can all get behind. Religion can also be abused as a source of power over weaker people by sick individuals. As for Christianity Im not a fan of the modern feel I am liking the older version though, that old testament God is real heavy metal and much more accurate for a God, smiting people and stuff. You don't think the war in heaven was won with words do you? no God and his angels got shit done and fucked up the infidels with smiting. Like this: I'd be more inclined to accept a religion if they weren't so unliking of people like homosexuals, transgenders as a Bi-gendered individual I wouldn't feel comfortable been a christian or truely accepted. Not to mention me and God have some deep issues, he knows what im talking about.. |
SpooksJul 28, 2014 7:24 PM
 |
BeyondNero said: The world is improving, slowly, but improving. Science has created vaccines, sent us into space, found DNA, made operations possible, the discovery of atoms, the invention of human flight, the internet, the computer, and countless other wonders we humans have created with the collected knowledge of our race. Science has created nuclear bombs , faster and quicker killing machines , horrible biological weapons , serious deformities , gas chambers , etc. How exactly is that improvement? And what counts as improvement in your eyes? People living longer? Faster ways to do stuff? What sort of stuff exactly? So can you tell me how science is a good thing? Do you see how easy and quick it is to demonize any ideology or practice? Religion is a way to explain the unexplainable. However, if we think how far religion had to retreat over the last couple hundred of years, we can look at how reason is winning the fight. Even "The Old Testament" has been studied, and it has been found out that the current christian god "Yahweh", was simply a god of war to the early Israelites. They were a polytheistic religion once, three gods, two was outlawed when the followers of Yahweh became a huge majority, and then the stories were rewritten. Shows the truth behind religion don't it? Sources? |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Shadow55 said: (i.e. Who/what created the universe, how old the earth is, evolution, etc) How exactly do those clash? Science does not propose any answer for what created the universe. That remains a blank topic. Science clashes with itself over the age of the earth. Different dating methods yield different ages. How exactly does it clash with evolution? Many religions deal with the origins of life, but not how it changes which is solely what evolution deals with. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
YoukaiNoYama said: Shiratori99 said: Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that it's scientifically possible that humans lived for 900 years 10000 years ago? Science is clear: No human lived for more than 122 years and 164 days. So I guess he shouldn't try to use science as argument next time. XD That would be admissible......if science somehow monitored every human who lived before accounts were taken. It is sort of amusing to see people assume that science somehow speaks absolutely for the past. The past is one of the areas that poses the greatest difficulty for science because we only have the present to judge the past. A lot of it is based on reasonable assumptions, but never forget that they are still assumptions. The one thing that I find when I come to a Science/Religion debate being a scientist myself is that many simply throw away science's definition and teach it as some sort of infallible doctrine. One of the main points of science is the fact that it is NOT infallible. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
RedRoseFring said: Shadow55 said: (i.e. Who/what created the universe, how old the earth is, evolution, etc) How exactly do those clash? Science does not propose any answer for what created the universe. That remains a blank topic. Science clashes with itself over the age of the earth. Different dating methods yield different ages. How exactly does it clash with evolution? Many religions deal with the origins of life, but not how it changes which is solely what evolution deals with. Science doesn't provide an indefinite answer as to what created the universe because no answer has been 100% proven to be true. But to say science does not -propose- (key word there) any answers is wrong. There are theories out there. I've heard a lot of Christians themselves say the earth is only 6000 years old, and that god created the earth in 6 days. Both of which are bullshit. There's no way those timeframes are correct. Although, I have also heard that those "days" are actually much larger periods of time and not actual 24 hour windows. Honestly, I don't know. I haven't read the Bible. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure evolution says we evolved from other mammals, while the bible says God created man. It's pretty clear how those two clash. |
| I guess one good thing came out of that ban: I missed the part where this turned into religion vs. science. Flashback: I said: But let's not turn this into a science vs. religion thread please. |
| Religion doesn't make people good or bad. There are good or bad people of any religion. |
| I guess in a way it can be. For some people religion is the only thing that gives them hope and keeps them going. What needs to stop is people using religion as an excuse for doing wrong, to justify prejudices, etc. |
breeze-Jul 31, 2014 3:05 AM
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - Yesterday |
27 |
by Dracowyn
»»
57 seconds ago |
|
» Dracula, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde or Frankenstein(books)?Absurdo_N - Apr 23 |
11 |
by xthewarwithinx
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Yesterday |
23 |
by Ejrodiew
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
676 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
43 |
by LordSozin
»»
2 hours ago |