Nice to hear that the world population came from East Africa. lol, I think thats just a confirmation of studies that have being done long ago rather than a new finding or concept.

However, I dont understand how that negates the concept of creationism (or maybe thats not the purpose ). If we all came from one man, does that not make sense that we could all be traced back to one location?

Uche2nna:

Nice to hear that the world population came from East Africa. lol, I think thats just a confirmation of studies that have being done long ago rather than a new finding or concept.

However, I dont understand how that negates the concept of creationism (or maybe thats not the purpose ). If we all came from one man, does that not make sense that we could all be traced back to one location?

Well, it is hard to know what dress Creationism wears as it dresses itself up differently each time one takes a look. However, literal biblical creationism, the belief help by the vast majority of fundamentalist (evangelical/pentacostal) Christian is the view that it all got started by God about 6000 years ago in the garden of Eden - basically all of nature and reality was created in one vigorous week of activity by Yahweh 6000 years ago.

The result from science clearly is in opposition to this version of creationism. If science shows that humans all originate from Africa about 200000years ago, that CANNOT be in agreement with the creations of the bible, can it? Is this hard for you to understand or are you simply deluded too?

In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

Here is the lego illustrated depiction of the story of genesis.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn02_04-06.html

This shows just how ridiculous the story is. Snakes don't talk
And to think i used to actually believe that this fairytale was true.

This entire exercise has not been justified. . . the poster says post your peer-reviewed articles for creationism and evolution, i have seen a lot of peer-reviewed articles on evolution and non not even one on creationism only attacks and diatribe. . .

huxley:

Well, it is hard to know what dress Creationism wears as it dresses itself up differently each time one takes a look.  However, literal biblical creationism, the belief help by the vast majority of fundamentalist (evangelical/pentacostal) Christian is the view that it all got started by God about 6000 years ago in the garden of Eden - basically all of nature and reality was created in one vigorous week of activity by Yahweh 6000 years ago.

The result from science clearly is in opposition to this version of creationism.  If science shows that humans all originate from Africa about 200000years ago, that CANNOT be in agreement with the creations of the bible, can it?  Is this hard for you to understand or are you simply deluded too?

@ huxley

Why is it that everytime U see something U dont agree with , U go off trying to turn it into a mudslinging match.

This is exactly how U drew me into a confrontation with U on some thread (remenber Finally, well that was me). U might enjoy confrontation but I try to avoid them and I kinda regret going into one with U on that thread.

Anyways, U put a time scale , 200,000 you say, and that is man's definition of time? Lets look at this , even from ur own point of view,, lets pretend there are other life forms smewhere in the galaxy, what is the likelihood that time would measured in the same manner "earthlings" measure time?  

Now, this is a question I deal with on a daily basis.
Now putting my religion aside, I will say that neither of them should be believed. I'll put the review articles up in a lil' bit.

Creationism has a flaw which is the entire notion of a spiritual being cannot be proven. However, Evolution that claims to have the answers still has a lot of unanswered questions and we still have a lot of missing links and assumption. It's a very complicated process but I'll get all the articles ASAP before I start arguing about this again.

Moonstone:

Now, this is a question I deal with on a daily basis.
Now putting my religion aside, I will say that neither of them should be believed. I'll put the review articles up in a lil' bit.

Creationism has a flaw which is the entire notion of a spiritual being cannot be proven. However, Evolution that claims to have the answers still has a lot of unanswered questions and we still have a lot of missing links and assumption. It's a very complicated process but I'll get all the articles ASAP before I start arguing about this again.

that is the argument that creationist always use to try to prove non existent points. . . they are quick to point out that no one knows where god or the creator came from, they always say that nobody has ever been able to say where god came from i.e the theological first cause argument. . .this has never really gotten anybody anywhere, because if they argue that everything has to have a cause, or a creator, then they have to face up to the question of who created god and if they argue that there are some exceptions, or even one, then why not accept that the exception might as well be the physical universe as god?

mazaje:

that is the argument that creationist always use to try to prove non existent points. . . they are quick to point out that no one knows where god or the creator came from, they always say that nobody has ever been able to say where god came from i.e the theological first cause argument. . .this has never really gotten anybody anywhere, because if they argue that everything has to have a cause, or a creator, then they have to face up to the question of who created god and if they argue that there are some exceptions, or even one, then why not accept that the exception might as well be the physical universe as god?

can evolutionists state the origin or composition of the pioneer organisms that started life?
what is the very first complex reaction that started evolution? what are the simpler reactions that made up this very first complex reactions?
which of this simpler chemical reactions came first?

noetic:

can evolutionists state the origin or composition of the pioneer organisms that started life?
what is the very first complex reaction that started evolution? what are the simpler reactions that made up this very first complex reactions?
which of this simpler chemical reactions came first?

i wasn't talking about evolution i was talking about the first cause argument with regards to the universe theist always make. . .what is the first reaction that lead to the creation of god? if you believe that everything must come from something then god must come from something too? what then created god? all i know is that if theist insist that god always exist then i can say that the universe always exist too. . . .by the way some scientist have stated the origin of the pioneer chemicals that started life. . . .

mazaje:

i wasn't talking about evolution i was talking about the first cause argument with regards to the universe theist always make. . .what is the first reaction that lead to the creation of god? if you believe that everything must come from something then god must come from something too? what then created god? all i know is that if theist insist that god always exist then i can say that the universe always exist too. . . .

I dont know if I understand ur line of argument but last time I checked the "concept of something must come from something" came from the biologist's perspective.

Uche2nna:

I dont know if I understand ur line of argument but last time I checked the "concept of something must come from something" came from the biologist's perspective.

theologist use that argument a lot too. . . they call it the first cause argument meaning that everything must have a cause. . . . . nothing can come out of nothing except god. . . that argument it self is not persuasive. . .by the way there is no reason to believe that the universe functions like the human society. . .

First of all the name is God and not god, show some respect even if U are an atheist

mazaje:

. . .by the way there is no reason to believe that the universe functions like the human society. . .

I wonder who the above is directed to? The creationist know fully well that the mysteries of the universe might not necessarily be all defined by human concept of time and space. The proponents of evolution think otherwise.

This is what happens when man is entrusted with abundant Knowledge.

He begins to question his creator.

mazaje:

that is the argument that creationist always use to try to prove non existent points. . . they are quick to point out that no one knows where god or the creator came from, they always say that nobody has ever been able to say where god came from i.e the theological first cause argument. . .this has never really gotten anybody anywhere, because if they argue that everything has to have a cause, or a creator, then they have to face up to the question of who created god and if they argue that there are some exceptions, or even one, then why not accept that the exception might as well be the physical universe as god?

That is the same argument that evolutionists use to prove that creationism is wrong. One of my professors referred to God as a cosmic joker because of all the so-called evidence of fossils. I'm not saying that is my reason for creationism not working. Evolution still has the same problem. There is a reason why they call it 'Theory of Evolution' and not a 'Law'. Even Evolution has its quirks because they are still looking for links between different life forms.

noetic:

can evolutionists state the origin or composition of the pioneer organisms that started life?
[b]what is the very first complex reaction that started evolution? [/b]what are the simpler reactions that made up this very first complex reactions?
which of this simpler chemical reactions came first?

EXACTLY!
That again is called the big bang theory. If this is so true, why hasn't another earth been created and why are humans not evolving? Evolution is not a unidirectional process because it operates on the basis of natural selection. That is why both creationism and evolution have the same problem. Whichever one you choose is based on the fact that you believe more in one theory than you do in the other.

mazaje:

i wasn't talking about evolution i was talking about the first cause argument with regards to the universe theist always make. . .what is the first reaction that lead to the creation of god? if you believe that everything must come from something then god must come from something too? what then created god? all i know is that if theist insist that god always exist then i can say that the universe always exist too. . . .by the way some scientist have stated the origin of the pioneer chemicals that started life. . . .

What created God? What created the first organisms on earth? Answer any of those questions and I will be very happy to hear about it. Why hasn't it occurred elsewhere? Why only Earth?

If someone can prove to me that Evolution occurred in Mars or in Pluto, I would be very happy to hear more about it.

In an article published in May 1 2009 issue of the journal Science, researchers report the isolation of proteinecious material from an 80 million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur) and provide robust phylogenetic evidence that dinosaur and birds are evolutionary related. In addition the study confirms the previous isolation of protenacious material from a 68 million-year-old T. rex. The chemistry behind the preservation of protiens in these Cretaceous dinosaur fossils is unknow. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/626.pdf

Some great material for learning about evolution at Evolution Outreach here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/120878/

"Science adjust it's views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that beliefs can be preserved."

- Ron Ashley

Reporting in the journal PLoS ONE, a team of international scientists describe the morphology and paleobiology of a 47-million-year old fossil of a primate known as Darwinius masillae ("Ida". The fossil is 95% complete and provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of Eocene primate till date. Analysis of this fossil suggests that it is a transitional species between primititive non-human evolutionary primates like the Lemurs and human evolutionary primates (anthropoids) such as monkeys and apes. This article is published in May 19, 2009 issue of PLoS ONE. See below:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723

m_nwankwo:

In the largest genetic study sampling african populations, a team of international scientists led by Sarah Tishkoff provide compelling evience that all africans are decended from 14 ancestral populations. The study also confirms earlier work that modern humans originated from Africa and  that east Africa is the source population for the out-of-africa migration of modern humans to other parts of the world. The study also shows that about 71% of african-americans can trace their ancestry to west Africa. This study is published in the May 1, 2009 issue of the journal Science. I will post the full length paper later on. In the meantime, find below a popular summary(understandable to biologists as well as non-biologists) of the findings as published in the journal Science. See below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5927/575.pdf

I promised as above to post the full length paper of the Science article. Kindly find below the link to the full length paper. I hope that many can open the pdf. See below:


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5930/1035.pdf

Qoute me any where "There is a subtle conspiracy amongst scientists to thwat faith in God" Please ask for the Jehovahs witness's book titled "man evolution or creation" Many people on this forum are not scientists and so may not be able to defend creationist. Who ever cares, should please visit www.cosmicfingerprints.com

Science is not in opposition to creation but scientist tend to make it appear so.

Writing in the journal Mol Bio Evol, scientists present experimental as well as bioinformatic evidence that non-protein coding DNA sequences are also subject to evolution. Their study is based on identifying the cognate DNA motiff to the transcriptional repressor  REST. Their study appear to have implication for the role of non-coding DNA sequences  in shaping both micro and macro evolution. See below:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/7/1491

@ m nwankwo

Nice work U are doing.

But wat good is it when one cant read the whole article cos of subscription issues. I can get some of them thru the institution but Mol Biol Evol is not a very popular journal , I doubt if I can get that one.

Uche2nna:


@ m nwankwo

Nice work U are doing.

But wat good is it when one cant read the whole article cos of subscription issues. I can get some of them thru the institution but Mol Biol Evol is not a very popular journal , I doubt if I can get that one.

Hi Uche2nna. Try and see if you can get it through your institution. If you are unsuccessful and still want to read it, I will look at ways of making it available without infriging the copy right of the journal. Stay blessed.

Got it.

One more reason why I think the thought that the presence of divergent species on this planet can be explained by random and spontaneous mutation of DNA sequences is the most [i]stupidest [/i]thought mankind have ever come up with.

Uche2nna:

One more reason why I think the thought that the presence of divergent species on this planet can be explained by random and spontaneous mutation of DNA sequences is the most [i]stupidest [/i]thought mankind have ever come up with.

I trowey salute O! Wetin happen - you dey vex when you type the highlighted?
How body sha?

Hi pilgrim,,,,,, body still dey inside cloth oooo . Cant complain.

How U dey?

I no vex oooo ,,,,,,, the thing just dey coke-a-stic to me LOL!!!!

Lol, [coke-a-stic]. .
Well, I'm doing okay.

Uche2nna:


One more reason why I think the thought that the presence of divergent species on this planet can be explained by random and spontaneous mutation of DNA sequences is the most [i]stupidest [/i]thought mankind have ever come up with.

I do not think that explaining the diversity of species on random and spontaenous mutation is a stupid thought. However, I do not think that mutations that alters the genotype of an organism leading to speciation is a random and spontaenous event. My view is that such mutations are not random or spontaenous, rather they are created, and maintained by the power of God. How the power of God controls genes is still a mystery to science but it will be my endeavour later in my career to provide experimental evidence that the genes and the proteins or regulatory RNAs that regulate them are simply effects, not the causation. The causation is the power of God. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

be my endeavour later in my career to provide experimental evidence that the genes and the proteins or regulatory RNAs that regulate them are simply effects, not the causation. The causation is the power of God. Stay blessed.

Well, thats all good.
However, to show that something is just an effect, U have to also show the underlying cause. U believe that the underlying cause is God but it just befuddles my mind how U would go about showing that experimentally.
Basically, U are saying that U want to give us empirical evidence that God exists.

m_nwankwo:

I do not think that explaining the diversity of species on random and spontaenous mutation is a stupid thought.

Given what we know about the probable number of genes and their DNA coding sequences and fitting that into a probability model to determine how many permutuations and combinations of random and spontaneous amino acids changes would have to occur in order to get an organism as highly coordinated as man makes it a really stupid idea.
It is mathematically impossible for humans to have evolved from mutation of DNA coding sequences cos one, the error rate would be humongous and two, it would be a very painful, albeit long process. Left to random mutation alone, we would prolly be still at the level of cockroaches at this age and that is if we manage to evolve without accumulating deleterious mutations.

And now to tell me that non-coding DNA sequences also played a part is even making the evolutionary theory harder and harder to buy.

Well, thats all good.
However, to show that something is just an effect, U have to also show the underlying cause. U believe that the underlying cause is God but it just befuddles my mind how U would go about showing that experimentally.
Basically, U are saying that U want to give us empirical evidence that God exists.

Ok. It can be done. I will test what I am permitted to know and we see where it leads. If for example a mutant gene or genes are responsible for, let us say prostrate cancer. I am convinced that in future, one who is called by God can under experimental conditions and just by simple prayer effect a change in the DNA which can be emperically verified, that is , not only will the prostrate cancer disappear but the undelying genetic mutation is also reversed.

Given what we know about the probable number of genes and their DNA coding sequences and fitting that into a probability model to determine how many permutuations and combinations of random and spontaneous amino acids changes would have to occur in order to get an organism as highly coordinated as man makes it a really stupid idea.
It is mathematically impossible for humans to have evolved from mutation of DNA coding sequences cos one, the error rate would be humongous and two, it would be a very painful, albeit long process. Left to random mutation alone, we would prolly be still at the level of cockroaches at this age and that is if we manage to evolve without accumulating deleterious mutations.

And now to tell me that non-coding DNA sequences also played a part is even making the evolutionary theory harder and harder to buy

It will be mathematically improbable if the mutation is subject to chance and is random. I do not believe it is so. My view is that evolution of biological life is not a random event, rather it was created and maintained by the power of God. Thus if God created evolution as I believe he did, then their is no room for permutations, chance and improbabilities that you seem to talk about. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

I am convinced that in future, one who is called by God can under experimental conditions and just by simple prayer effect a change in the DNA which can be emperically verified, that is , not only will the prostrate cancer disappear but the undelying genetic mutation is also reversed.

Ok, I will have to ignore a lot of issues I see in ur experiment and just assume that U have already done the experiment.

How do U convince anyone of ur findings? U do know that one of the hallmarks of experiments is its reproducibility? How will someone like me who have not been called by God be able to reproduce these findings in my own lab?

How is the disappearance of prostate cancer different from the disappearance of many incurable diseases by prayer. Has that convinced the scientific community that there is a God?