Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Studies slow the human DNA clock
Nature ^ | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 | Ewen Callaway

Posted on 09/22/2012 10:25:11 PM PDT by SunkenCiv

Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned -- ironically -- from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years. "It's a suspiciously round number," says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified.

In the past few years, geneticists have been able to watch the molecular clock in action, by sequencing whole genomes from dozens of families5 and comparing mutations in parents and children. These studies show that the clock ticks at perhaps half the rate of previous estimates, says Scally.

In a review published on 11 September1,Scally and his colleague Richard Durbin used the slower rates to reevaluate the timing of key splits in human evolution. "If the mutation rate is halved, then all the dates you estimate double," says Scally. "That seems like quite a radical change." Yet the latest molecular dates mesh much better with key archaeological dates.

Take the 400,000-600,000-year-old Sima de Los Huesos site in Atapuerca, Spain, which yielded bones attributed to Homo heidelbergensis, the direct ancestors of Neanderthals. Genetic studies have suggested that earlier ancestors of Neanderthals split from the branch leading to modern humans much more recently, just 270,000-435,000 years ago. A slowed molecular clock pushes this back to a more comfortable 600,000 years ago (see 'Better agreement over the human story').

(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...


TOPICS: History; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; homoheidelbergensis; replacementmodel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-131 next last
To: BrandtMichaels
My previous reply with the points highlighted have not been addressed in a manner sufficient enough to refute them. You have typed in opinion-based conjectures which have no bearing on the argument. Feel free to type them out, but do remember that your input has no bearing on negating the points you are replying to refute. Re-read the points and refute them, specifically, if you desire to add to the discussion.

Regarding transitional species, by the very definition of the term, these are a change from one species to another, over time. In other words, their occurrence, by the nature of the change, is fewer than the occurrence of the stable species from which it arose, and the stable species to which it settles. Since fossils themselves are rare, it would be logical to expect transitional fossils to be even rarer. However, this does not imply that they didn't exist. One of the biggest finds affirming this was the recent findings of the Pakicetidae fossils. Pakicetidae are the ancestors of modern whales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetid


51 posted on 09/23/2012 2:14:10 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
There is no way evolution happened the way flesh beings claim it did. Any Christian worth his/her salt knows that Christ did not come about from the process of evolution.

As long as you embrace ignorance like that, religion will continue to lose influence, which is a shame.

52 posted on 09/23/2012 3:26:00 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
I meant non living matter ‘configured’ in a way that makes us living.

Why don't we see "configured" matter appear out of nowhere as you say it happened. We do see changes in genomes occur naturally, though.

53 posted on 09/23/2012 3:31:03 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

When did I say configured matter appeared out of nowhere ? I don’t even believe that’s possible, ie matter cannot self configure through random events of nature to become living.


54 posted on 09/23/2012 3:52:10 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you that was very interesting reading. Thank you for taking the time to put that all together.

There was an article I read recently and a t.v. show and I am sorry I don’t remember where it was that I saw it. It was about the eruption around 74,000 years ago of mt. Toba in Sumatra and the resulting near extinction of Homo Sapiens. Scientists have estimated that as few as 10,000 individuals survived that cataclysm. Surely only the fittest individuals would have survived such an event and that would have reduced genetic diversity some. So actually the present day population has all come from those ten thousand ancestors. No doubt there have been many such disasters throughout man’s history but he survives and thrives. Mass extinction events play an important role in shaping life on the planet. After all if that asteroid or comet hadn’t hit the Earth 65,000,000 years ago we might not be here. I think these mass extinctions, ice ages, massive volcanoes and warming periods account for some of the rapid changes and new forms we find in the fossil record as ecological niches are destroyed and new ones are created constantly.


55 posted on 09/23/2012 4:31:25 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: libh8er
When did I say configured matter appeared out of nowhere ?

Then what are you saying? Where did it come from, and be specific about time frames and such if you can please? How would we observe it and verify it?

56 posted on 09/23/2012 5:35:43 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: albionin
Yes, speculation is all that it is and it has no basis in fact. All of the story of Genesis is that way. There is zero evidence that any of it took place and if it is taken literally then the evidence is against it being true.

There is evidence that the events of Genesis took place but only if one believes the words of Jesus Christ in scripture. When answering a question about divorce, Christ gave this answer:

Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,'
Mat 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH' ?

So Christ himself, whom scripture teaches IS God, affirms that the creation account is valid. Or at least he never disavowed them. Other biblical figures affirm the creation account as true and accurate.

The speculative part is the "why" of certain things. They're speculative because scripture is silent on some matters.

As a believer, I think that the proper approach is to assume that these things are true and figure out where and how the physical and historical evidence fit into this truth.

57 posted on 09/23/2012 5:53:22 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I don't see anything in Genesis that would lead me to believe so. In fact, the opposite is true.

Genesis 2: says how God waved His hands (or whatever) and all living things appeared. At some point early in Gen:2, He made Adam, and towards the end, He made Eve by cloning her from a rib. Details on exactly how a female was cloned from a male are severely lacking. Genesis 3: says how Adam and Eve listened to a talking snake and ate some fruit. There is no mention of them having children until Genesis 4, where they had two sons. At the time the older son was exiled for killing the younger son: Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear! [4:14] Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me." And at that time, any discerning reader is left to wonder, exactly whom is Cain afraid of? The only other two existing people, his parents, who he's never going to see again anyway? And where on earth did his wife come from, since Adam and Eve had no daughters and apparently would not have any until decades later (decades after Eve would have undergone menopause)?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist or any kind of specialized knowledge to see that the story of Genesis does not have internal consistency and is, in fact, contradictory to our observations of the world.

Or, perhaps, such "obviousness" is based on your [wrong] presumptions?

Given that it takes no more than a critical reading of Genesis to recognize its pretty obvious internal inconsistencies, there is really no presumption to make. Genesis as a literal account of anything makes no sense. Genesis only makes sense as a metaphor.

So, how does evolution get past this problem, much less to the first male/female pair?

By the way, inbreeding doesn't always produce bad results. Just some of the time.

There is no "first male/female pair." Populations, not individuals, evolve. The bad results resulting from inbreeding are cumulative. The Egyptian pharaohs and European royalty were both examples of that.

58 posted on 09/23/2012 6:17:24 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
There is no "first male/female pair." Populations, not individuals, evolve.

Sounds magical.

And nonsensical.

The sum may be greater than its parts, but without its parts, in all of their characteristics, it doesn't exist.

59 posted on 09/23/2012 6:25:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If your only choice is evil, you've either died and gone to hell, or you're a Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Your are just opinions too until you can recreate history with some ‘evoloser’ experiments. I guess we’re done here once again since you can’t use logic to argue someone out of a position that they didn’t use logic to arrive at in the first place.


60 posted on 09/23/2012 6:27:24 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them;

2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;

3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;

4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).

Please don't swamp me with a ton of pseudoscience babble. There is enough actual science available on the internet that there is really no excuse for seeking out and repeating the pseudoscience.

If you have difficulty discerning the pseudoscience from the science, keep in mind that articles on real science contain references based in actual research and indexed in a reliable database such as PubMed, that just about every statement in a genuine science article is supported by at least one and sometimes multiple references, and that there is a great deal of consistency from research report to research report.

61 posted on 09/23/2012 6:30:34 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The Bible was given to us by God and tells us that He created the Universe, created man, the fall of man, and sending His Son to die for man.


62 posted on 09/23/2012 7:16:40 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Sounds magical.

And nonsensical.

The sum may be greater than its parts, but without its parts, in all of their characteristics, it doesn't exist.

Indeed. The notion that an entire species can arise from a single breeding pair *is* magical and nonsensical, and completely contrary to actual observations.

Why don't you go and read up on population drift and mechanisms of evolution and get back to me when you have a firm grasp of what is being discussed?

63 posted on 09/23/2012 7:22:06 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

There is the Bible which was written by men, and then there is the Universe which was created by God. I know which one I’ll believe when there can be no compromise.


64 posted on 09/23/2012 7:29:53 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

The bible can not be considered evidence in logic any more than the book of Mormon or the Koran. You can say you believe it but that does not make it true. Science deals with objective measurable facts of existence. The base of knowledge of reason is existence. The base of knowledge of faith is belief without reason. The substance of that which is hoped for is a wish. Wishes are not absolutes. Feelings are not absolutes. Numbers of believers are not a substitute for evidence any more than the number of believers of a scientific theory if there is no evidence to support it. Existence is an absolute, facts are absolutes. Feelings are not. Arbitrary claims are not means of cognition.


65 posted on 09/23/2012 7:32:07 PM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The Bible was given to us by God and tells us that He created the Universe, created man, the fall of man, and sending His Son to die for man.


66 posted on 09/23/2012 7:41:23 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them;

2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”;

3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection;

4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good).

I don't think that person knows about polyploidy or any of the other mutations that involve duplication of genetic code.

67 posted on 09/23/2012 7:41:51 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Ha! Evolution is not real science. Real science does not claim to be able to repeat an experiment in history - esp millions and billions of years - it’s only a matter of time before people wake up to this fraud you choose to defend. Can’t wait to see what happens when evolution is removed from the governmental give-aways.


68 posted on 09/23/2012 7:48:20 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I don't think that person knows about polyploidy or any of the other mutations that involve duplication of genetic code.

I think that person doesn't understand a lot about genetics.

69 posted on 09/23/2012 7:51:55 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: albionin

Obviously you don’t know anything about the Bible so please do us all a favor and quit your senile comparisons with other religions. Try reading just about any famous atheists converted to christianity - if you dare - it will truly be a real eye opener for you. Ever heard of prophecy bub?


70 posted on 09/23/2012 7:52:00 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Too bad God hasn’t given us a revised edition so you can use it as a science book and not look ignorant.


71 posted on 09/23/2012 7:52:32 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

This breakthrough further substantiates the Biblical Creation story. Random-chance-anti-god-naturalist-atheists have long claimed (laughably if you know all the facts) that there is no “need” for a Creator God and that
random chance mutations over long periods of time can explain new species (again not true. Read about the Cambrian explosion about 535 million years ago. Almost every phyla in existence today appeared in the fossil record in a geological “instant” leaving paleontologists and theoreticians at a complete loss for an expatiation). The former theories were based on the belief that mutations were frequent (1 mutation per nucleotide base letter per billion years) and if you compound those mutations for 3ish billion (in humans) base pairs over enough years, you get your new species. WELL, the old theory couldn’t explain rapid speciation events, and NOW this new finding shows that DNA is TWICE as resistant to change as we previously believed. That renders it just about a complete impossibility that any new species can be explained through mutation and gradualism. Praise GOD!


72 posted on 09/23/2012 8:06:06 PM PDT by Captain Steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; exDemMom

Populations evolve through the accumulation of favoured traits. What’s so nonsensical about that? Mutation increases the variety of traits and natural selection favours some of them (meaning more reproduction of the traits) and eliminates others (which may or may not reappear). What’s nonsensical about this? In comparison with Adam and Eve conversing with a snake, and the magical appearance of people not descended from Adam or Eve (and who aren’t supposed to exist, because if they did, they didn’t descend from Adam or Eve) whom Cain is afraid of, in his exile, as ExDemMom pointed out?


73 posted on 09/23/2012 8:45:37 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Yada, yada. Whatever. You are unable to dispute the arguments, so you post mumbo-jumbo conjecture and then when I point this out, you choose to take your bat and ball and go home.

LOL.


74 posted on 09/23/2012 8:46:42 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
In comparison with Adam and Eve conversing with a snake, and the magical appearance of people not descended from Adam or Eve (and who aren’t supposed to exist, because if they did, they didn’t descend from Adam or Eve) whom Cain is afraid of, in his exile, as ExDemMom pointed out?

Please, think just a TINY bit more and you won't end up, along with ExDemMom, saying such stupid things.
75 posted on 09/23/2012 8:53:03 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Why don’t you think about wasting a little lesser of everyone’s time, and instead address what ExDemMom raised? That would be the opposite of the stupid comment you just posted.


76 posted on 09/23/2012 9:23:51 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
In comparison with Adam and Eve conversing with a snake, and the magical appearance of people not descended from Adam or Eve (and who aren’t supposed to exist, because if they did, they didn’t descend from Adam or Eve) whom Cain is afraid of, in his exile, as ExDemMom pointed out?

Please, think just a TINY bit more and you won't end up, along with ExDemMom, saying such stupid things.

For instance, many people assume, without foundation, that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's first two or only two children. But only three are mentioned by name. A population growth rate of 4% (sub-Saharan population growth rate is about 2.5-3.8%, growth in Gaza is 4%)) with the current reproductive window of about 40 years starting from an initial population of 2 would, after 500 years, grow to a population size of 657,203,163. The Gaza population growth of 4% is based on an average of 7.9 births per childbearing woman. If a woman lived long enough to double that, a growth rate of 8% would, over 500 years, result in a population of 10,301,672,500,257,000. In 200 years, a growth rate of 8% would result in a population of 9,677,899, and that is assuming what is now an average human life span. If, though, individuals were living for and actually fertile over multiple centuries, you could, in a time span of 200 years be dealing with an extremely large population, virtually all of them strangers to most of the first few generations who would still be their contemporaries. But those with a bent to scoff never seem to bother to think through the implications.
77 posted on 09/23/2012 9:30:52 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
The one He gave us is perfect and only a fool would think that man 'evolved'.

'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools'(Ro.1:22)

78 posted on 09/23/2012 9:45:53 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Why don’t you think about wasting a little lesser [sic] of everyone’s time, and instead address what ExDemMom raised?

Uh, because I was responding to what YOU posted, not what she posted?

That would be the opposite of the stupid comment you just posted.

What, how large a population could grow at a certain rate over a specified length of time from an initial number? If you used a population calculator, you could see this for yourself. I guess I could also have corrected you on your misperception of the serpent in the account of Adam and Eve, but since you have already decided that it's a bunch of fairy tales, it wouldn't make any difference.
79 posted on 09/23/2012 9:46:23 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Bump for your apt comments.


80 posted on 09/24/2012 3:30:19 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If your only choice is evil, you've either died and gone to hell, or you're a Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

No, about the other humans who apparently did not descend from Adam and Eve... the ones Cain was afraid of... where did they come from?


81 posted on 09/24/2012 4:28:04 AM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; EternalVigilance

And no, that silly “population calculator” does not explain how 7 billion humans could have descended from a starting pair of two, whose mode of reproduction is incest / inbreeding.

Go take a look at how the Egyptian royalty fared due to this cultural practice, and what happened when European royalty married into small gene pools (consanguineous marriages, cousin-marriages, and not even incest, by the way).

Don’t let the cheers from the peanut gallery distract you from answering to the point.


82 posted on 09/24/2012 4:36:44 AM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Ha! Evolution is not real science. Real science does not claim to be able to repeat an experiment in history - esp millions and billions of years - it’s only a matter of time before people wake up to this fraud you choose to defend. Can’t wait to see what happens when evolution is removed from the governmental give-aways.

Repeating a strawman fallacy from sites like Answers in Genesis or their ilk does not, in fact, constitute a valid argument. Try reading up on how the actual science is done, and how the fields of paleontology, geology, genetics, biochemistry, etc., all approach the questions from different angles and yet still come up with a picture that is pretty consistent. Compare that to the stories invented by various creationist con men--they aren't even consistent with each other, let alone with any science.

Also, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on people to "wake up to this fraud" that is actually the unifying theory of biology. The ancient Greeks were aware of evolution; if scientists haven't found an alternative scientifically defendable theory in those thousands of years, I doubt they're going to come up with something now.

83 posted on 09/24/2012 5:13:58 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

Your personal attack does not answer my argument as to why the bible can not be considered as evidence in logic. Please provide objective proof of The Genesis story. And I am a young person not senile, yet.


84 posted on 09/24/2012 6:08:53 AM PDT by albionin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
As long as you embrace ignorance like that, religion will continue to lose influence, which is a shame.

Time is on my side, as the evolutionary revolution has about run its appointed time. I am Christian, and reality is the safest footing any Christian can have traveling through time in a flesh body. Once the last soul created eons ago willingly takes this flesh journey then there will never be a need for flesh bodies again. Imagine that, all the time effort and money spent to prove the evolutionary fairy tail/tale will have been for naught. What a waste.

Once this flesh age ends, the real undisputed education will begin to erase the tales/tails of Darwin. Probably makes the evolutionists wince at the prospect they will have to junk all their theories beginning with that hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum, wherein one single cell got all hot and bothered and magically reproduced itself and walla there was life.

85 posted on 09/24/2012 8:55:36 AM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Once this flesh age ends, the real undisputed education will begin to erase the tales/tails of Darwin. Probably makes the evolutionists wince at the prospect they will have to junk all their theories beginning with that hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum, wherein one single cell got all hot and bothered and magically reproduced itself and walla there was life.

Since God uses evolution, he is an evolutionist, but I suppose he forgives you and would like for you to attain the knowledge that he allowed humanity to discover.

86 posted on 09/24/2012 1:37:06 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Since God uses evolution, he is an evolutionist, but I suppose he forgives you and would like for you to attain the knowledge that he allowed humanity to discover.

Somebody lied to you. God never obsessed over flesh bodies. He had Solomon describe the two bodies in Eccelastices, the flesh body under the sun, and that spirit body that lives beyond the grave. The flesh body gives the identification of each and every 'soul' that comes through this flesh age in a flesh body. Not all souls will pass through this flesh age, some left their habitation and mixed with the daughters of Adam and sought to pollute the blood line to Christ. This bunch have been sentenced to death along with the first rebel. But, that flesh body is not what goes before the Creator and Christ as advocate on judgment day. Peter says categorically without question there are 3 heaven/earth ages. The beginning is never dated and that first heaven/earth age ended when the devil rebelled. Isaiah 14:12- and Ezekiel 28:12-.

By the time Christ (God with us) inhabited this earth and before any of the so called New Testament got penned upon animal skins or plant fibers, Christ said (Mark 13:23) Behold I have foretold you all things. Christ did not set in motion man the authority to revise and extend what had already been set in motion. Flesh is going to die and will never be useful to anyone ever again.

87 posted on 09/24/2012 1:58:45 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Please help Todd Akin defeat Claire and the GOP-e send money!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

You’re using the Bible as a biology book. No wonder you come off as ignorant.


88 posted on 09/24/2012 2:23:17 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
'professing themselves to be wise, they became fools'(Ro.1:22)

That's a Bible verse about philosophy, not science and knowledge. You are misusing it to promote ignorance.

89 posted on 09/24/2012 2:29:45 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Captain Steve

Actually, you don’t know what you’re talking about, which isn’t surprising, given your outburst of nonsequitur clich&eacutes. By having the clock slow down, any chance of a 6000 year old Earth just got a nasty blow to the privates.

Me, read about the Cambrian explosion? You read about it — it’s clear that you haven’t read anything other than the usual Satanic lies from the usual online sources which pretend to be Bible-based, but are in fact the lies of Satan.

IOW, get thee behind me.


90 posted on 09/24/2012 5:25:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Hey, what did you expect from that troll?


91 posted on 09/24/2012 5:25:59 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thanks JCB, I’m saving it to read later, along with its link.


92 posted on 09/24/2012 5:32:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; null and void

I dozed off trying to read it, but I think it’s actually for null and void? :’)


93 posted on 09/24/2012 5:34:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Well said, and unless there were *more* mutations, and I mean MANY more, and miscarriages from bad ones, there’s no way to make it work — IOW, the “explanation” one of Satan’s followers up there gave that before “corruption” the genome was totally stable, makes no sense at all.


94 posted on 09/24/2012 5:37:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: preacher

Thanks preacher.


95 posted on 09/24/2012 5:37:27 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

A slower clock (as in this article) is probably an outgrowth of the Replacement model, in which a master race of “anatomically modern” humans left Africa and completely wiped out all earlier forms (such as Homo Erectus, which is what Peking Man was) and Neandertal without mating. Both Replacement and Multiregionalism has some early species (generally, Homo Erectus) leave Africa and continue to develop in isolation from Africa and from one another. The two models differ in that, the Replacement model sez the isolated groups reached the point of genetic incompatibility with the other groups; the Multiregional model sez the egress from Africa led to isolated parallel development and eventually to the modern ethnic drifts we see today. The Multiregional model makes the most sense IMHO, and the Replacement model is just some kind of racist drivel. I’d also add that, since the continental shelf (which is now submerged) has been dry land for most of the past two million years, and the lower the altitude, the warmer conditions are (everything else being equal, such as at latitude for example), probably Africa and the rest of the Earth as we know it today was colonized from what are now the submerged areas.


96 posted on 09/24/2012 5:45:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett
Populations evolve through the accumulation of favoured traits.

It's not even necessary for favored traits to appear. For evolution to occur, it is only necessary for the genomes of two different populations to diverge. It's analogous to the way our languages have diverged--you write "favour" and I write "favor", but neither way is advantageous. They're just different.

97 posted on 09/24/2012 6:03:56 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and regurgitating some foolish ex cathedra claims of some so-called expert just makes you look even more ridiculous.


98 posted on 09/24/2012 6:08:29 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Time is on my side, as the evolutionary revolution has about run its appointed time. I am Christian, and reality is the safest footing any Christian can have traveling through time in a flesh body. Once the last soul created eons ago willingly takes this flesh journey then there will never be a need for flesh bodies again. Imagine that, all the time effort and money spent to prove the evolutionary fairy tail/tale will have been for naught. What a waste.

Once this flesh age ends, the real undisputed education will begin to erase the tales/tails of Darwin. Probably makes the evolutionists wince at the prospect they will have to junk all their theories beginning with that hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum, wherein one single cell got all hot and bothered and magically reproduced itself and walla there was life.

The Rapture could be tomorrow, and we could all be whisked off to God's kingdom and find it drastically different than anything here on earth. That changes nothing about the nature of the real world. Those of us who are born with a drive to learn as much as we can about the world around us aren't going to encounter any great surprises. We're certainly not going to find out that all of the evidence of evolution--not only of life on earth, but of the universe since the big bang--is nothing but an elaborate hoax. If God is truly as great as we have been taught, He will leave as many mysteries for us to discover in His kingdom as he left for us here on earth.

99 posted on 09/24/2012 6:16:47 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
God never obsessed over flesh bodies.

If you truly believe that God does not obsess over our physical bodies, then why are you so obsessed with believing that the story of Genesis is literal? Why should it matter that we evolved, if our physical form is so unimportant?

100 posted on 09/24/2012 6:23:45 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson