Evolution or not?

Thanks for the info. Optimissed. I'll try and figure out how

to get there.

Try this:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/413662495337233/843558472347631/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_comment_follow

Did you read what I just wrote? I just explained to you why the tests are not arbitrary. Then you respond that they are arbitrary lol.

Ill explain you again:

You have made a test. You want to know if it is a good test that gives the correct number, because no scientist is interested in a test that spits out random numbers.

You find something where you already know the result. For instance, we already know from the history books when people brought horses to iceland, and where the horses came from. So we know if we compare icelandic and norwegian horses, the test should say "1000 years".

Then you do the test, and if it says the correct numer, 1000 years are you happy then? No, not yet. We do the same thing with some other populations where we know the correct result again. Five or ten times, with different comparisons. We dont want to start using a test before we think it works,

When the test can do that and get the right result every time, then it isnt arbitrary and random anymore, which of course a test isnt if its any use.

I dont know how they devised the test, but I can tell you, that if your sources told you that scientists are happy with tests that give random results, then your sources are wrong. Thats how the social sciences work lol.

Ok Razz, but like I said before one can get any results that one wants.

Since @Elroch and his now mostly defunct wingmen have blocked so many folks from their evolution thread --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion?lc=1#last_comment

Here's a question for readers -- wasn't that an incredibly banal TED talk in post #518 ?

"Cooking made us human" ??

And Phreneology gets a second wind.

Yikes, that's scary thinking, even for Lord @Elroch.

No you cant. I just explained it to you twice.

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

einstein99 wrote:

Ok Razz, but like I said before one can get any results that one wants.

No you cant. I just explained it to you twice.

__________________________

At approximately 30 mutations on the human genome( one every hundred million nucleotides)per generation one

still can't get 5-7 million years for an MRCA with chimps. I'm using the liberal figures of evolutionists of a differential of 150,000,000 nucleotides between humans and chimps, which has been shown to be wrong and is many times more. At that rate you have 65,000,000 mutations in 5-7 million years which leaves us short by 85,000,000 mutations.

Even with that liberal figure you would have to more than double the amount of time for the time frame used by evolutionist for an MRCA, The evolutionists numbers just don't add up. Of course some of them are lengthening their time estimates now for a supposed MRCA between humans and chimps How convenient, just keep fudging the data until you get the result you're looking for. I used to do that in my chem. engineering classes. 😉

So what? Maybe the 5-7 million years is wrong. They will keep working, see if they can improve the test that seem the weakest so it gives the correct result. If it keeps saying 3 million or 9,5 million or whatever and it seems sound, they will consider looking more at the data set that gave the 5-7 million figure. That's how it works.

I found a random study that ended with 13 Billion  https://www.sciencenews.org/article/chimp-and-human-lineages-may-have-split-twice-long-ago-thought

And 7-9 million http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2012/08/generation-gaps-suggest-ancient-human-ape-split

IT'll be cleared up in time.

What you don't understand here Razz is that it's still an assumption no matter what time frame one comes up with.

Its a conclusion based on a hypothetical assumption that we came from some ape like creature. Its a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Its called circular reasoning in layman's terms. Its just a guess! 😕

The latest MSY( male specific y-chromosome) chimp/ human study(done by evolutionists) that was concluded last fall has shown that instead of chimps and humans being 98% alike( 2005 draft study found in Nature mag.) humans and chimps are only about 50% alike, at least on the Y-chromosome comparison. The rest of the chromosomes were found to be about 70% alike.

The entire structures on the Y-comparisons were radically different. Some of the gene sequence classes had no genes alike. The study has rocked the scientific community. Evolutionists are scrambling to come up with answers to rectify the chimp/human ancestor connection. Its the usual suspects like LGT(lateral gene transfer) or HGT( horizontal gene transfer), duplicate gene copies and modification, exon shuffling, retropositioning, genetic drift, etc.

More fudging to keep the ol' tale alive. 😉

No, its supporting evidence. If the MRCA said we diverged from chimpansees 100 years ago (and kept doing it after tweaking) and the fossil records said 7 million years, then there would be a serious problem lol.

Now its just a normal case of two (or more?) datasets converging over time, same thing happens in archeology when they get new dating methods (dendrocronology and carbon14 for instance.). 50%-100% difference doesnt seem bad to me with 2 very different methods and a difficult subject, its a long time ago this ancestor guy! Plus that the one method was only used like 10 years because the chimp genome first got sequenced in 2005.

2005 is hardly last fall dude. You are copy pasting from some creatinist webpage that was made in 2006 right?

Two separate studies dude. The 2005 study was a draft study. That means only small pieces of the genomes were used and the rest were assumed to be analagous. Approximetely 700 nucleotide length sequence files were used. It was a five fold study.

The MSY chimp/human study was done last fall by evolutionists from MIT I believe, can't remember for sure.

It concluded that the chimp/human Y-chromosome comparisons were around 50% similar. If you look at the ideagrams they really don't look alike at all.

Just Google chimp/human y-chromosome study.

Its written by evolutionists dude. The 2005 study that has been thrown around for years was a train wreck dude.

I havnt looked at any websites dude since I've started this thread. All knowledge from my years of studying real science and not some concocted garbage from evolutionists sites dude. 😐

The only evidence from the fossil record has humans with a one or two percent combination with Neanderthals and Denisovans, and even that is suspect. That means we didn't descend from either one. There is no proof that humans came from an ape like creature. Its just hypothetical scenarios and story time.

well,think of it.How often spontaneous mutation  could be happen on a species.If it was unable to be predicted,then creating a time frame asumption would be too risky.A new species could be came up in short time period.If so,magic and science can't be distinguished.I think of the magic behind spontaneous mutation  from physics perspective.

<<<There is no proof that humans came from an ape like creature. Its just hypothetical scenarios and story time>>>

Proof isn't necessary, Einstein, since it's the only possibility, seeing as we ARE ape-like critters. If you genuinely only have one possibility, you don't need proof.

It's like having a simple bagatelle with two channels but you only have access to one of them. If you release the marble and it isn't in the channel you can see, you know it's in the other one and you don't need to see it.

Join my group as you suggested and allow a bit of common sense to wash around your toes.

One more thing, Einstein99_dude. Never implicitly believe any study done by anyone, at least until it has been corroborated by several sets of others using different methodology if possible. Having said that, never believe studies done by those working under the auspices of religious foundations AT ALL, EVER.

Exactly Optimissed dude. That's why the conclusions drawn from the evolutionist dudes 2005 chromosomal draft study has made them look foolish. The more recent one ( also done by evolutionists ) shows we didn't descend from ape-like dude creatures. ☺

BTW, their more recent study wasn't a draft study but mapped every nucleotide and therefore is highly accurate, unlike their first study which only mapped a few nucleotides and assumed the rest were the same. 😉

The marble theory is a hypothetical scenario Optimissed, unless of course you can show from what creatures the Cambrian animals descended from. 😕

Common sense would tell us that if there were no precursors than they had a different and unique origin, which suggests that we could have had a unique origin also. Might want to study up a little. 😊