Does 'religion' even qualify to be a 'hypothesis'?

So is an evolutionary natural link between the human brain and apes. Modern humans are quite different genetically and a strict evolutionary path has not been proven. I thought scientists were supposed to be objective? Chimps are our nearest animal relative however, we are more like each other genetically than chimps are like each other. There is scientific speculation that we all descended from one female. Even if that were so, one needs to consider where that female came from.

A Scot, a Japanese and an Australian Aborigine are far more closely linked by family inheritance than any three chimpanzees from different African groups.

http://niceguidelines.blogspot.com/2011/04/dna-research-all-humans-descended-from.html

 

1) Modern humans are not that different genetically from chimpanzees and other apes. Our DNA sequences only differ by around 2%, that is only around 20 times larger than the genetic variability in humans.

2) Well, of course we are, that is what evolution predicts...

3) Honestly, it sounds like you know nothing about evolution. What you're talking about is the Mitochondrial Eve and you need to read the "fallacy" section of the Wikipedia article.

4) Once again, evolution predicts this.

 

2% is huge when you consider it only takes 1 chromosome to radically affect a species.

Evolution doesn't 'predict' anything.

What of it? I never said she was 'the only woman alive at the time'....Nor did I say she was the Biblical 'Eve.'

And once again, evolution does not predict anything.

 

All of your answers are basically arguing the same thing.

Okay, humans may be more similar to humans than apes. And? This is exactly what we would expect if evolution is happening. Species that are cladistically closer share more DNA in common. And no, "evolution" doesn't predict anything, but the Theory of Evolution does make certain statements about the world that we can test by certain observations, these are what we call "predictions".

 

As are yours.

The FACTS are that chimps are NOT as similar genetically to each other compared to humans being more similar to each other. You got off track. OK now you say evolution does NOT predict anything whereas before you said it did...

 

I just said this...

And no, evolution as a process does not predict anything, but the theory of evolution does naturally result in predictions.

 

Well, in my 62 years, being an out-doorsey kind of fellow (lots of hunting and fishing and camping and hiking), I have never encountered one of those predictions that are "naturally" resulting from the theory of evolution. Where are those type of predictions more likely to be found?

 

Come on now...you DIDN'T say that... you said humans were close to chimps which was not even near the point I was making. You didn't reply, you only made out-of-context statements and then claimed I was wrong.

I was not talking about the RESULTS of evolution. Which planet are you on?

 

"Modern humans are not that different genetically from chimpanzees and other apes."

"Okay, humans may be more similar to humans than apes."

Is exactly what I said. Are either of these two statements wrong or out of context? I don't see how.

Earth, where evolution is a known process.

 

Hey, genius, naturally has a few more meanings than meaning "from nature".

I see why nobody really likes you around here, you just keep nitpicking for no apparent reason. You act like you have no knowledge of alternative definitions of words.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural

Specifically #8

"8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper)."

 

I am glad the you used that particular dictionary. It is one of my favorites.

Also, did you know that I got blasted one time by a non-theist for not using the definitions according to their listed order? So, in line with that other non-theist, I would kindly remind you of definition #1. But of course I do acknowledge what you are saying, but one must remember, that all of the definitions are applicable and are therefore included in the definitions.

One of my favorite examples of what you are pointing out is the definitions of the term 'rationalize'.... '3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior): and 'Verb 1. rationalize - defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; "rationalize the child's seemingly crazy behavior"; "he rationalized his lack of success" ... so yes! I do understand that there are many definitions for some words. But thanks for bringing to the attention of everyone.

BTW: Notice in your definition #8, the use of the word "accepted"? Well, that word does not throw any credibility toward the notion of something being "true". .. it is simply meaning 'for the purpose of widespread recognition'. The use of that word denoting a credible source of evidence would also place credibility on the existence of God.

 

Sorry, I thought I was talking with a person that could understand that the context of what is being said should be taken into account when trying to decipher the meaning behind a word. I learned this in like second grade, what's your excuse?

 

Not the point I was making and, in any case, that was settled when YOU said there is a 2% genetic difference between humans and chimps. That is HUGE I said...You never addressed that but prattle on with the same off the point rhetoric.

You misrepresent what I say and when I correct it, you come back with the same irrelevant statements. You are becoming a waste of time.

 

And what I'm saying is that it isn't huge. Sure it is greater than the variability between humans, so what? That doesn't make it, by default, a huge gap in common sequencing. Cats have around 90% of homologous genes, 82% with dogs, 80% with cattle, 75% with mice, and 60% with fruit flies. Comparatively, a two percent difference in DNA, which once again is ONLY 20 times smaller than the DNA difference between different people, is incredibly small.

But I guess my last statement is even if you want to say that this gap is HUGE, then so what? What does that have to do with anything?

 

Well now. If you want to talk about context... we shall:

The manner in which you used the word "naturally" was reflective of the subject of "naturally" which would have been the subject of 'evolution'. Evolution by definition is a term related to the field of 'biology' (by closest example of the available definitions that you subscribed to); therefore, your comment was out of context; you should have used this definition:
"c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: "

Now if you want to allege that the use of the term 'evolution' was not the subject but rather the subject to have been "the theory of evolution": then I would submit that you are still in error. Why? Because the theory of evolution is not capable of causing anything that could be considered the 'result of'. In other words, 'the theory of evolution' is not capable of performing any act which would generate a result. Only people apprehending the theory of evolution are capable of generating a result from their apprehension of that subject matter.

Try again.

 

single god, not 'sun god'.

ie.... the god of 'light' is YOUR GOD, too

it proves that 'exodus' per torah is crap as a story. I didnt say anything about nature (our creator).

Do you wear a helmit when you walk? (stay focused)

And evidence shares that the abrahamic beliefs are closer to egypt that the wingnuts will accept.

go to the science section and learn what LIFE is.

Otherwise, what question do you have.

coherance is a naturally observed phenomenon. Have you not even learned the basics? The difference i posed is based on comprehending that the life of mass is em (light) upon mass.

ie..... from how life even exists to how the brain works, is being shared with the combining of 'energy upon mass' to existing comprehension of simply 'coherance' of wavelengths (think of how music resonates in a harmony).

p/s..... i am the idiot with THE answers on life

mankind, wants to know

Most everyone ever born has 'wanted' to know at some point in their life.

Even you!

 

Ahkenatan gave Aten elevated status above all the other Egyptian gods which has been described as monotheistic. Early inscriptions describe Aten as a 'sun' among lesser stars. After Ahkenatan died, his legacy was quashed as later rulers founded a new dynasty and referred to Akhenaten as the enemy. Even his City that he built Amana (built for Aten) was abandoned.

Ancient events often have sparse data and to look at one set of data is irresponsible. Therefore to say that exodus never happened is also irresponsible. There are Jewish scholars that agree with the religious texts and those that are skeptical.

Come now Bishadi...You can't expect everyone to dress like you...

And that is your opinion to which you are entitled.

So you are saying that 'life' is the explanation for the Universe? Pretty vague really. I think you have no answer and are attempting a failed bluff.

Restate that in American English please.

Where did all that life come from? Where did these wavelengths of yours originate? String theory is fine but is still doesn't explain origination. For instance Steven Hawkings has a theory that the Universe was created from nothing at all. But then, what is 'nothing?'

Hawking suggests that it is not appropriate for physicists to theorize that the current configuration of what we call the 'Universe' was from one particular configuration. In that scenario the present actually selects from a past of many different possibilities.

In effect, there was no beginning and there is no end. Which is exactly an over-arching theme in religious study.

OK so what? You still have no answer at all do you?