Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a quick clarification of the original post. The genetic research supported the Out of Africa hypothesis for the origin of anatomically modern humans.
Quote:
African origin
We infer from the tree of minimum length (Fig. 3) that Africa is a likely source of the human mitochondrial gene pool. This inference comes from the observation that one of the two primary branches leads exclusively to African mtDNAs (types 1-7, Fig. 3) while the second primary branch also leads to African mtDNAs (types 37-41, 45, 46, 70, 72, 81, 82, 111 and 113). By postulating that the common ancestral mtDNA (type a in Fig. 3) was African, we minimize the number of intercontinental migrations needed to account for the geographic distribution of mtDNA types. It follows that b is a likely common ancestor of all non-African and many African mtDNAs (types 8-134 in Fig. 3).
Source - Cann, R., Stoneking, M. and Wilson, A. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution. Nature, 325, 31-36.
Last edited by solidsquid; 08-08-2007 at 04:28 PM..
I don't mean to sound belittling but anyone with a general understanding of DNA would know that we would be too closely linked to have any formidable evidence in a courtroom as far as DNA is concerned if the OP was true.
You say that "we would be too closely linked to have anyformidable evidence in a courtroom as far as DNA is concerned if the OP was true." This is not true, we can all be linked by DNA at 99.5%; there is a possibility it is as high as 99.9%. When proving who is the father, catching a murderer, or any other type of proof, DNA has to have 99.99%. That is how they prove it. We are all related, dispelling the theory of Darwinism and therefore showing how inacurate Social Darwinism is.
Last edited by dymondeye; 07-18-2008 at 02:52 PM..
You say that "we would be too closely linked to have anyformidable evidence in a courtroom as far as DNA is concerned if the OP was true." This is not true, we can all be linked by DNA at 99.5%; there is a possibility it is as high as 99.9%. When proving who is the father, catching a murderer, or any other type of proof, DNA has to have 99.99%. That is how they prove it. We are all related, dispelling the theory of Darwinism and therefore showing how inacurate Social Darwinism is.
What on earth are you talking about?
Social Darwinism and The Theory of Evolution really don't have much to do with one another. While we can apply the theory of "Survival of the Fittest" to humankind such as what Adolf Hitler did than yes I could see how selective genetics could persuade a population of individuals in one direction.
However, the Theory of Evolution simply works on the premise of three things. Variation, heredity, and selection. In most, if not all organisms, that reproduce asexually the genes from each parent are given to the child in a process called vertical gene transfer. What the author originally failed to mention was that mitochondrial DNA is found in all organisms and not just humans. By the standard set forth by the OP, only humans should have mDNA but we find it in just about every multi-cellular organism alive.
Therefore, if anything points to a common ancestor - or speciatic development - it is indeed mDNA. If we were the only beings on Earth that had mitochondrial DNA I could see the point. But, once again, there is a deliberate misinformation all in order to prove an esoteric religious fantasy.
Is it just me or is there absolutely no science behind any of this?
It goes like this:
Anything with scientific connotations is immediately given more credibility by the masses than anything with religion attached to it so by disguising the religious dogma and trying to pass it off as science, you can sound more convincing. Of course it sure as heck feels immoral and it requires you to reject any actual science that contradicts you but the ends justify the means right?
Thank you.... And whether you believe now or later.. you will believe as well...
Ro 14:11 -
For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God."
I will never believe your religious brouhaha.
Nor would I ever bow to some arrogant, intolerant, hateful being even if one existed.
That said, why do you try to convert atheists?
For the most part, we don't care. At least, I can say with 100% assurance, I do not want anyone trying to convert me to anything.
I will never believe your religious brouhaha.
Nor would I ever bow to some arrogant, intolerant, hateful being even if one existed.
That said, why do you try to convert atheists?
For the most part, we don't care. At least, I can say with 100% assurance, I do not want anyone trying to convert me to anything.
Just out of curiosity, cheilgirl, why does it seem you are so hateful toward Christians? Is it not you who decided to read this thread? Did you not expect, based on the OP's thread title, that you would see such a topic being discussed? It does not appear that the original thread was only directed toward Athiests. It could also be read as interesting material by Christians. It doesn't appear that the title in the original thread says "Dear Athiests", or "dear Chielgirl", therefore, to say that the post was directed to convert you simply doesn't make any sense. It seems you are using this opportunity to express more of your anger toward God. It is as if you want the whole world to know. If you'd like, I'm sure it would be a good idea to speak to someone about such hatred and bitter animosity, because in many threads of your that I have read, you are repeatedly expressing disgust toward anything 'Christian' or 'God-related'. It almost seems as though you are using this as an opportunity to mock people's words and sending out signals that you are determined to make sure everyone knows just how YOU PERSONALLY feel about God. Look at the way GCSTROOP handles himself in such posts. He seems to offer what he feels to be adequate (no personal feelings are really entered into the equasion) information showing why he believes the way he does in these posts. He does not come off needing to shout out to the world that he doesn't believe in God. While I may not agree WITH GCSTROOP, I can say he is a wise man in his studies, and is here to collaborate with other individuals and state what he has learned. While I understand your need for the whole world to accept the fact that you have been badly bruised and consequently quite angered, does it not offend the original poster when you berate and belittle them? You will be so quick to tell everyone that 'Athiests don't care', but I have seen many 'Athiests' on here who care enough to comment on what they believe to be valid. Why do you just keep going on to all these threads telling Christians that Athiests don't care? Is it not wise to exit a room if you dont 'care' what's being talked about? It is more disruptive than anything and causes bad feelings when you outwardly insult 'our God', by throwing in your own personal attacks against Him.
Everyone already knows your viewpoint and your hatred toward God and your need for the whole world to hear you. Do you have anything else to add?
I will never believe your religious brouhaha.
Nor would I ever bow to some arrogant, intolerant, hateful being even if one existed.
That said, why do you try to convert atheists?
For the most part, we don't care. At least, I can say with 100% assurance, I do not want anyone trying to convert me to anything.
Incidentally, chielgirl, this post is listed under 'Religion'. Not under 'Athiests'. If such is the case, there is not a thread of your being that should assume that any Christian is trying to 'convert you'. You are after all, an 'Athiest', right? And this is, after all, in the 'Religion' section right?
Another key point.... your accusations of God being hateful and arrogant and intollerant just goes to show that you have not deeply studied the existence of God, nor have you studied the doctrine that is behind God and His power, qualities, traits, attributes, or relationship with people individually. If you have studied none of these things in depth, then it is wise to say that you have only spoken out of thoughts and emotions rather than by educated study which is then followed by rejection. What doctrinal topics have you studied in depth, that have led you to say such 'hateful' things about God? I'm curious. You have to have known Him personally in order to tell people so many things about Him, no? Surely you have not known Him personally, which would make you sound like someone who has been dealt a bad hand, and once again, wants everyone to know about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DNA and the Court
And whether you believe now or later.. you will believe as well... 
