Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 .... model... How are you using this term here LL? What does 'model' imply in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 .... model... How are you using this term here LL? What does 'model' imply in your mind? Visual/mental. Using that rather than hypothesis as this is nowhere near the standards for a scientific hypothesis. More like a brainstorming. Confused now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 .... model... How are you using this term here LL? What does 'model' imply in your mind? Visual/mental. Using that rather than hypothesis as this is nowhere near the standards for a scientific hypothesis. More like a brainstorming. Confused now ? Uh not really. You seem to confirm for me that you are misusing the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 OK I looked I use OoA model which is the current model for origins from Africa, not mine. This could be the map of the supposed migration or whatever other data is used to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 This thread makes little to no sense to me. Abiogenesis is mentioned in the title and so is evolution. But what I see in the content of the thread seems more akin to anthropology. Can anyone participating in this thread give me a synopsis of what LL is proposing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 Are you now gonna troll this thread? Kinda should have expected a turd like you to fuck up a decent discussion - why don;t you fuck off if you have nothing to contribute? Wanker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 sigh I'm just trying to understand what this thread is about LL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 Read the thread or address me directly or you will get the vitriol that post deserved. Speaking to others about me or my intentions suggests you want to hijack the thread and draw the attention to yourself as you often seem to do, remember the free will thread you fucked up? I put a lot of effort into my posts unlike the fucking drivel you post. You have just once again shown you are no more than an attention seeking whore-troll. If you wanted to upset me, you succeeded, now fuck off unless you have something to add to the discussion. Mods please can you delete these last few posts since Legion graced us with his crap. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Read the thread or address me directly or you will get the vitriol that post deserved. Okay. Are you proposing that there now exist humans who came from different origins but converged phenotypically? Sort of like sharks and dolphins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 Are you proposing that there now exist humans who came from different origins but converged phenotypically? Sort of like sharks and dolphins? Sharks are fish, dolphins are mammals. I am not going to repeat what I have already stated. Your question is already addressed. The origins IMO are multiple threads of the same or similar lineages. Dunno why you asking me this as you earlier agreed with the assertion. LL, for what it's worth, I don't believe that abiogenesis was the emergence of just one organism on Earth. I strongly suspect that many organisms arose nearly simultaneously across the planet. Please read the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I'm not interested in reading this entire thread LL. I'm interested in speaking with you here and now about this view of evolution you have. And I'll tell you why. I suspect you have some good ideas, and I suspect you have some bad ideas. And I'd like to see which are which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The evidence we have at present. We obviously have not dug up all the fossils there are to dig up. FWIW, I have claimed (without proof) the real GoE was in Africa and in particular the Serengeti just because it is awesome. GoE? Garden of Eden? Gamble of Earthlings? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps I view the DNA code as organised and not something that evolved randomly. Posing what may see as a ridiculous assertion here, if DNA mutation was random rather than deliberate, what is to stop our DNA from going nuts all on its own? In a way, it can, and does, but the process of replicating and decoding the DNA is fairly stable, so it doesn't, except for that small fraction of errors. Have you ever had water go all nuts? Well, it can go bad. Bacteria and such. But does it go nuts like dancing naked on the tables and singing silly songs? No. The fact it progresses logically as we reproduce passing on genes from both parents puts this concept to bed. I doubt a "rape an ape" bestiality would result in offspring even though we share so much common DNA. That branch happened jonks ago and w/o genetic manipulation in the lab, it ain't gonna happen. "Rape an ape"? Technically, we didn't come from the ape or mated with the apes, we share an ancestor with the apes. We also share ancestors with monkeys, rats, donkeys, fish, and amoebas. The point I was trying to make is that they traced the "origins" to Central Africa just south of the equator. Not much archaeology or science has been conducted further south due to the instability of the region. It is not science research friendly. Did you watch the video? It explains how they've done the tracing using DNA markers, not archeology. The ruins, we were taught that the locals were not the originators of them and since the advent of Mugabe, two archaeologists refuted this and yet all that we see as a continuance was ZERO evidence of this masonry skill set. The political aspect was that the Mashona's built this, Mugabe's tribe, and yet Khami follows the same pattern and in an area where they did not come from, that area is descendants of the Zulus and called Matebeles. They too have no history of masonry skills. Architectures are only a few thousands of years old. The mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam are traced to hundreds of thousands of years ago, way long before any civilization or construction. There's no archeology involved in that sense. Are we talking about different things here? Are you talking about the Biblical Adam and Eve, not the genetic? The real truth is probably there was a civilisation that died out, an unsuccessful branch perhaps and the current natives are migrants to the area. Most of this is common knowledge here. IMO, we really do not know who built them but it was not the natives' forefathers. One does not discard the skill of masonry, hewing bricks out of stone and going back to living in straw huts. Cultures tend to build on the shoulders of their forefathers. Skills are handed down. Some have suggested this was part of the slave trade from Egyptians but that is just tooo far south to work. Other's have posited it to be something to do with King Solomon, again too far south and ZERO evidence. Okay? And? Modern migration and artifacts from some thousand years ago somehow disproves DNA? No, I am asking why Neanderthals were only to be found in Europe IF that is the prime reason for their whiteness. I don't think neanderthals were white. I'm not sure about that at all. Whiteness doesn't come automatically because someone migrates to cooler climate. It's not some magic portal that changes the DNA. The white skin most likely came from the second migration from Africa. But I don't think anyone knows for sure. I have to look into it. If they also came from Africa, what was stopping black folk with interbreeding? These assumptions of the DNA project are IMO still flawed but the best we have at present. Why are the Chinese shorter in stature and ess. white? Do they have Neanderthal genes too? Close by, we have the Indians and they are nothing like the Africans other than skin tone. The aborigines from Aus are dark skinned, similar to Indians but still not the same. Oh. Your issue is only about the skin color and how it evolved. Well, there are some hundred genetic parameters to skin color, not just one. There are environmental factors, probably epigenetic as well, and perhaps even diet can have something to do with it. There are people who are genetically "African" but are white, and there are people who are genetically "white" but are dark skinned. And that's because there are so many factors playing in. One thing we learned in anthropology class was that skin color is practically impossible to use to trace lineage. Even siblings in one family have different skin tones. Skin colors is more complex than considered inherited from one or two people. There are several genes that work in pairs, and they all affect other things at the same time, so it's a very intricate genetic code. Skin color does not prove or show anything about the genetic Adam/Eve. Following on from that, WHY did man not evolve in Europe, South America, etc? If the Pangea model is used, that happened a frigging long time before hominids came into existence. The moving of the continents "stopped" long before early man appeared on the scene. Probably because of the ice ages. There were several droughts too and since monkeys and apes evolved in Africa, and they were already better adapted to bipedality (and tool using hands), it's not strange at all. Yes I am aware of that "supposition." That "supposition" is based on genetic comparison. I don't understand why that's a problem? Did you watch the movie yet? He does explain how it works in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 No I do not think you are an asshole at all. It really does not keep me awake at night trying to have to prove any of this as I said it is my pet theory. I lack the wherewithal to even enter this as a hypothesis and as you know, there is already a universal acceptance of the findings/conclusions, most of which I agree on. Going against this accepted theory, it would be an uphill battle of which I have no interest in proving, life is too short. I enjoy the discussion as it makes one think. Good. The only area I see as flawed is that this ToE has (for now) supposed a point of origin what I see primarily based on incomplete data just b/c we found Lucy and for reasons unknown decided to call that M-Eve. Eh? No. Lucy is not the M-Eve. And Lucy is not the only find. And besides, the M-Eve is a conclusion based on DNA markers, not primarily the skulls. The DNA marks are compared to living people today to trace the lineages. Do any of you think we have in ±130 years since Darwin's departure from creationism have ToE done and dusted? That to me is pretty presumptuous. It sounds to me that you think that M-Eve and Y-Adam have something to do with the Bible and Christianity, but that's not how it works. M-Eve lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-Adam lived about 100,000 years ago. There's a 100,000 years gap between them. They did not live simultaneous. And the reason why they concluded it was what the DNA said. Most of these scientists are non-believers and strong opponents to Creationism. The Lenski experiment spanning over 20 years has put to bed the objections of evolution. It happens. The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010. Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media. (Wiki) Even so, they still be bugs but 50k generations is not something to be sneezed at. Absolutely. I read in class about Lenski's experiment, and some of the findings were amazing. They could identify a beneficial mutation that happened that was "irreducible complex", i.e. it required several steps of mutations in between before the final mutation gave the benefit. This field is so vast and we as humans are really only able to wrap our heads around small snippets of a focussed study. I seriously doubt science will determine origins other than what now exists. We can only hope to build on this as we repeatedly find more and more evidence to support it. You do understand that the genetic Adam and Eve are not "origins" but rather bottlenecks in a much larger chain. The Adam and Eve are two independent events in history most likely caused by some disaster or shifts. Sometimes it can be a bottleneck event like founder's effect and such. We don't know yet, but the DNA points to this. But the DNA also points to shared ancestry with the chimps. ---edit--- I realized that perhaps I should point out that mDNA is only inherited from the mom, which means that all of us got our mDNA from our moms, and our moms and dads got theirs from their moms, and so on, and mDNA mutates very little and the markers in the mDNA can be compared and that's why it can be concluded that at one point (a certain number of mutations back, which leads to an estimate in time) we shared a mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts