Human evolution - recent news

[Eagle_Eye]

I haven't lurked your profile page .You said you were lurking mott's.

I don't know if you have friends and are aware of this ,but I am allowed to stick up for my pals.

My posts on this thread have been generous, respectful, and non-dissmisive of religion . You cannot be blind to that fact .

The word "snooty" is code used by those resentful of the well spoken and erudite .I am not going to apologize for my education and ability to use the English language .

I haven't lurked your profile page .You said you were lurking mott's.

So in all the time you have been here you have never looked at someones profile page. Either you have no curiosity about those you debate or you're a liar! I believe the latter is the correct answer.

I don't know if you have friends and are aware of this ,but I am allowed to stick up for my pals.

Oh I have plenty of friends and I defend them when needed. You on the other hand are almost rabid in your defense of your "friend". In fact you attack when there is no reason. I said I didn't believe he was a scientist and you almost had a hissy fit.

My posts on this thread have been generous, respectful, and non-dissmisive of religion . You cannot be blind to that fact .

Until I brought up the point that it was possible a supreme being could have started the blueprint for life. At that point you went into scientific outrage mode and parroted the same scientific denial stuff we have been hearing for years. So no sport you have not been "generous" or "respectful" on the subject. Oh you tried to temper your meaning later but the proof was already out there.

The word "snooty" is code used by those resentful of the well spoken and erudite .I am not going to apologize for my education and ability to use the English language .

Wrong Sweet Pee ( Snooty= showing disapproval or contempt toward others, especially those considered to belong to a lower social class.)
That describes your attitude towards anyone who would dare challenge what you believe to be your superior intellect or knowledge.
As to education I dare say my education rivals yours if you truly have one and is by far more technical.


Now you can get back on your high horse and hold your nose from the stench of us unwashed masses you must bear here.

 

[Cypress]

So in all the time you have been here you have never looked at someones profile page. Either you have no curiosity about those you debate or you're a liar! I believe the latter is the correct answer.



Oh I have plenty of friends and I defend them when needed. You on the other hand are almost rabid in your defense of your "friend". In fact you attack when there is no reason. I said I didn't believe he was a scientist and you almost had a hissy fit.



Until I brought up the point that it was possible a supreme being could have started the blueprint for life. At that point you went into scientific outrage mode and parroted the same scientific denial stuff we have been hearing for years. So no sport you have not been "generous" or "respectful" on the subject. Oh you tried to temper your meaning later but the proof was already out there.




Wrong Sweet Pee ( Snooty= showing disapproval or contempt toward others, especially those considered to belong to a lower social class.)
That describes your attitude towards anyone who would dare challenge what you believe to be your superior intellect or knowledge.
As to education I dare say my education rivals yours if you truly have one and is by far more technical.


Now you can get back on your high horse and hold your nose from the stench of us unwashed masses you must bear here.

You wanted to bring religion into the thread - I responded with measured and thoughtful comments about religion, which you then willfully ignored because you wanted to complain about mott or my snooty writing .

It has not escaped my notice that there are conservatives who have plagiarized, mimiced, and emulated my lexicon, syntax , and style . So it would seem grudging admiration , and not "snooty" is the operative context here.

I have given you several measured insights about what I think about religion and science . I am going to assume at this point you have no interest in that tangent to the thread, even though you brought religion up .

 

[Eagle_Eye]

You wanted to bring religion into the thread - I responded with measured and thoughtful comments about religion, which you then willfully ignored because you wanted to complain about mott or my snooty writing .

It has not escaped my notice that there are conservatives who have plagiarized, mimiced, and emulated my lexicon, syntax , and style . So it would seem grudging admiration , and not "snooty" is the operative context here.

I have given you several measured insights about what I think about religion and science . I am going to assume at this point you have no interest in that tangent to the thread, even though you brought religion up .

One thing I have learned is anyone who ignores all possible answers is doomed to failure.
I used the term supreme being as that is how most Christians look at the creator. But just as man has created artificial life in a lab, why would it not be possible that some ancient alien people did the same thing here? These are possibilities and should never be dismissed until proven it didn't happen. You are free to believe what what you want. You are not free to ridicule others ideas.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Hey Cypress, thought you might enjoy this article even though it isn't about evolution.

https://www.wired.com/story/mass-graves-russia-tell-grim-story-mongol-invasion/

 

[Cypress]

One thing I have learned is anyone who ignores all possible answers is doomed to failure.
I used the term supreme being as that is how most Christians look at the creator. But just as man has created artificial life in a lab, why would it not be possible that some ancient alien people did the same thing here? These are possibilities and should never be dismissed until proven it didn't happen. You are free to believe what what you want. You are not free to ridicule others ideas.

I am on record on this thread openly stating I do not believe the scientific method is the only way to perceive the world and the nature of reality .
Without repeating myself, I see plenty of room for science ,faith, spirituality , and philosophy to contribute to the human experience .

 

[Cypress]

Hey Cypress, thought you might enjoy this article even though it isn't about evolution.

https://www.wired.com/story/mass-graves-russia-tell-grim-story-mongol-invasion/

I appreciate this !
This kind of stuff is right up my alley!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I believe in evolution but at the same time I don't believe this planet became inhabited by an accidental random chemical reaction. I stated a valid question ( that why couldn't God have planted the seeds of life and let evolution do the rest) and I got attacked for it. You like me cannot prove how life started on this planet, only that it did. So unless you have definitive evidence that I am wrong I suggest you be more cordial and not act like a superior ass.

As to Mott I looked at his profile and he list that he is a hazmat manager, that sport does not indicate being a scientist. I ran hazmat programs in the military and I'm not a scientist.

Hey if you know what RCRA is you can’t be all bad.

If you need to know my curriculum vitae I’ve done graduate studies in human biology and EH&S management. I spent 15 years doing research and development in materials science (focused on recycling hazardous waste) and have worked at several universities. I’m quite proud of the later as I’m self taught in materials science. Currently I’m a compliance specialist for a major chemical company where I’m a recognized SME in recycling, RCRA, DOT/PHMSA, HAZWOPER and Incidence Response Command. Done some remediation work too.

That’s how I earn my bread and butter but the core of my academic education at the undergraduate and graduate level were in Human Biology. I later pursued a Masters in EH&S management.

So though not a PhD level scientist like Cypress I am competent in two scientific disciplines at the Masters level.

I also like smoking weed, craft beers, hot Asian women, cooking, history and arguing politics.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Hey if you know what RCRA is you can’t be all bad.

If you need to know my curriculum vitae I’ve done graduate studies in human biology and EH&S management. I spent 15 years doing research and development in materials science (focused on recycling hazardous waste) and have worked at several universities. I’m quite proud of the later as I’m self taught in materials science. Currently I’m a compliance specialist for a major chemical company where I’m a recognized SME in recycling, RCRA, DOT/PHMSA, HAZWOPER and Incidence Response Command. Done some remediation work too.

That’s how I earn my bread and butter but the core of my academic education at the undergraduate and graduate level were in Human Biology. I later pursued a Masters in EH&S management.

So though not a PhD level scientist like Cypress I am competent in two scientific disciplines at the Masters level.

I also like smoking weed, craft beers, hot Asian women, cooking, history and arguing politics.

Thanks for being forthright, I concede you have the credentials. I have degrees in Aviation Electronics and Aeronautical Maintenance. I also ran Hazmat programs in the AF, but I have been retired so long everything in that area has changed.

As to Human evolution I question the theory that life on this planet just happened to have the right mixture of chemicals come together and formed the beginnings of life. I agree on the evolution aspects. That would mean that we are the only planet in the solar system that has life forms on it and that I find hard to believe.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for being forthright, I concede you have the credentials. I have degrees in Aviation Electronics and Aeronautical Maintenance. I also ran Hazmat programs in the AF, but I have been retired so long everything in that area has changed.

As to Human evolution I question the theory that life on this planet just happened to have the right mixture of chemicals come together and formed the beginnings of life. I agree on the evolution aspects. That would mean that we are the only planet in the solar system that has life forms on it and that I find hard to believe.

Earth is the right distance from the sun for liquid water to exist , and the only planet in the solar system where that is true, given that water can only exist in liquid form over a verynarrow range of temperature and pressure .

As far as we know liquid water is a requirement for life because it is the only medium that facilitates biochemical reactions.

So the absence of life as we know it in the solar system it is not a deep and enduring mystery.

We are currently looking for exoplanets around other stars that might be in the so called habitable zone for liquid water to exist.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Earth is the right distance from the sun for liquid water to exist , and the only planet in the solar system where that is true, given that water can only exist in liquid form over a verynarrow range of temperature and pressure .

As far as we know liquid water is a requirement for life because it is the only medium that facilitates biochemical reactions.

So the absence of life as we know it in the solar system it is not a deep and enduring mystery.

We are currently looking for exoplanets around other stars that might be in the so called habitable zone for liquid water to exist.

I wonder why On September 27, 2012, NASA scientists announced that the Curiosity rover found direct evidence for an ancient streambed in Gale Crater, suggesting an ancient "vigorous flow" of water on Mars.


That kind of blows your theory out of the water. Pun intended.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

While I appreciate the efforts of conservative’s Creation Science Museum making case that humans were created independently of biological evolution and frolicked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, the following conceptual illustration of human evolution makes more sense to me.

Recent advances in science:

-Denisovan genes: In addition to recent findings that non-African humans having a few percent Neanderthal DNA genes, there appears to also be evidence that early homo-sapiens also inter-bred with Denisova hominins - some modern humans might have Denisovan genes.

-Our closest primate relative, the bonobo: Our closest living relatives may be the bonobo…not the chimpanzee.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-bonobos-representation-common-ancestor-humans.html

Fascinating! Thanks...

 

[Cypress]

I wonder why On September 27, 2012, NASA scientists announced that the Curiosity rover found direct evidence for an ancient streambed in Gale Crater, suggesting an ancient "vigorous flow" of water on Mars.


That kind of blows your theory out of the water. Pun intended.

Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of mars. That there may be some small amount of water in the subsurface is interesting , but hardly indicates a biosphere that supports an ecosytem of life .The atmospheric pressure of mars makes it physically impossible for liquid water to currently exist at the surface, it would volatize within seconds.

In the distant geologic past the Martian atmosphere was denser and flowing water did occur . But most scientists think this was ephemeral and mars lost its surficial water billions of years ago .

You said you thought it was mysterious that life has not developed on other planets of the solar system . I gave you the reasons it is not a mystery . It is not my opinion , it is the current state of the scientific consensus .

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

"God does not play dice with the
Universe" Einstein

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of mars. That there may be some small amount of water in the subsurface is interesting , but hardly indicates a biosphere that supports an ecosytem of life .The atmospheric pressure of mars makes it physically impossible for liquid water to exist at the surface, it would volatize within seconds.

You said you thought it was mysterious that life has not developed on other planets of the solar system . I gave you the reasons it is not a mystery . It is not my opinion , it is the current state of the scientific consensus .

I know you have a PHD but so does NASA scientists and they say stream bed which indicates surface water. So if you don't mind Doctor I'll go with the scientists at NASA.

You are basing your theory that life must have these building blocks. oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus. But could life consist of other elements unknown to man? There may not be life as we know it in our solar system but who can say it doesn't exist in some other form. As we explore more and more who knows what we will find.

I refuse to accept that of the unknow number of solar systems in space this is the only planet that has life on it.

 

[Cypress]

I know you have a PHD but so does NASA scientists and they say stream bed which indicates surface water. So if you don't mind Doctor I'll go with the scientists at NASA.

You are basing your theory that life must have these building blocks. oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus. But could life consist of other elements unknown to man? There may not be life as we know it in our solar system but who can say it doesn't exist in some other form. As we explore more and more who knows what we will find.

I refuse to accept that of the unknow number of solar systems in space this is the only planet that has life on it.

I knew you would say this so I edited my previous post to address this

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I knew you would say this so I edited my previous post to address this

And you still got it wrong. You with your infinite book knowledge do understand the term "ancient" don't you? What you are referring to is the current atmosphere of Mars. However billions of years ago that atmosphere was quite different.
In fact "Early Mars »
Like the Earth, the climate of Mars has changed over time. Today, Mars is cold and dry and liquid water is not stable on the surface. However, very early in the planet’s history (more than 3.5 billion years ago) climatic conditions appear to have been favorable for the presence of liquid water on the surface. The evidence for this comes from the presence of fluvial features on ancient terrains, such as valley networks and open lake systems, that likely indicate precipitation and runoff."
https://spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/mars-climate-modeling-group/past.html

So if you want to argue the point I suggest you take it up with NASA not me.

Now if you want to argue aeronautics or avionics that is a different matter.

I do have one question. Why do you have a Russian flag as your Avatar?

 

[Ralph]

I have no idea what your point is.

The case can easily be made that Republicans, and in particular conservatives, are more likely to be hostile to the science of evolution than others. Quite a few religions/denominations have come to terms with evolution, even if Republicans and conservative religions have not.

The false premise? The attempt to convolute Vertical and Horizonal "evolution"......Macro and Micro evolution. And the attempt to convolute Objective Science..i.e., real science with Subjective theory..i.e., mental projection void of any objectively reproducible and consistent evidences of fact...better known as the Scientific Method.

Evolution as defined by the Darwinian Cultist is a theory......its not a FACT of any kind of Science. Notice the language used in even attempting to argue via using this TROLLING/PSEUDO science.

List the subjective BS langue qualifiers. The use of THEORY...and admission there is no FACTUAL evidence of Evolution. Now the language qualifiers...all SUBJECTIVE none OBJECTIVE. "SEE NO" "Generally Accepts" "Quite a few" (how many is quite a few? That's real objective documentation) "MORE LIKELY" "CAN EASILY BE"

The point and conclusion? Someone attempting to project the pseudo science of THEORY as Science that deals in facts as backed via the Scientific Method of demonstrating FACTS via Objective, Reproducible, Consistent EXPERIMENTS.

Anyone....just to make a point and distinguish between the 2 methods....one valid the other pseudo. Present the experiment where LIFE has ever been reproduced from non living organic matter.....Present the experiment that demonstrates that any living creature has ever Vertically/Macro evolved from one species into another.....in fact every time an experiment has been attempted to demonstrate that LIFE can evolve from dead matter.....the experiment has never confirmed such a theory...IT HAS REJECTED IT...THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT in the attempt to reproduce LIFE from dead matter.

Now.....anyone? Show us the experimentation results that has SCIENCE.....using the scientific method.....rejecting CREATION. Go ahead....show us a single experiment that proves that CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE like Science disproves that Spontaneous Generation is impossible......Science has been used to prove (just like the Bible states) that LIFE can only be reproduced from existing LIFE within in the same and unique species. See: Pasteur

Darwin's claim? Even though there is no evidence of Abiogenesis......LIFE MUST HAVE came from non living matter. Today the cultists ALWAYS demand that the base foundation of EVOLUTION (abiogenesis)….be ignored, then proceed to claim that EVOLUTION has taken place. Indeed...evolution is a fact of science....evolution within species better known as horizontal evolution, just as the Bible states. Each creature was given a unique DNA signature that allowed each created species to adapt to its physical surroundings. But no kind of life ever evolved into a totally new and unique creature....

A fish(cold blooded) creature has never EVOLVED into a Mammal (warm blooded) creature....as suggested by evolutionists. There is not one example of any creature caught in between species change i.e., Transitional(i.e., the supposed missing link) in the fossil record. The pseudo types will find an example of something DEFORMED at birth in the fossil record and attempt to claim....that is the missing link. Would not there be millions and millions of fossils that demonstrate EVOLUTION in a state of transition...if evolution were the NORM?

Thats much like (much like...more subjectivelty) claiming the different stages of MAN......they show pictures from human skeletons found in fossilized states in caves or other isolated places.....and say "LOOK" at the way the skull is enlarged...etc.. While they ignore the evidences of what happens when a group of humans are isolated from others.....and inbreeding takes place. Take a look at the results of inbreeding over extended generations...you get, huge skulls and other types of deformities, that they psuedos claim is an example of an evolutionary stage. LMAO

There has been example after example of HOAXS throughout the decades.

 

[Cypress]

And you still got it wrong. You with your infinite book knowledge do understand the term "ancient" don't you? What you are referring to is the current atmosphere of Mars. However billions of years ago that atmosphere was quite different.
In fact "Early Mars »
Like the Earth, the climate of Mars has changed over time. Today, Mars is cold and dry and liquid water is not stable on the surface. However, very early in the planet’s history (more than 3.5 billion years ago) climatic conditions appear to have been favorable for the presence of liquid water on the surface. The evidence for this comes from the presence of fluvial features on ancient terrains, such as valley networks and open lake systems, that likely indicate precipitation and runoff."
https://spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/mars-climate-modeling-group/past.html

So if you want to argue the point I suggest you take it up with NASA not me.

Now if you want to argue aeronautics or avionics that is a different matter.

I do have one question. Why do you have a Russian flag as your Avatar?

Read my post again (112), because the bolded is exactly what I said. We are talking past each other.

The bottom line is that life as we know it requires liquid water, which can only exist in a very narrow range of temperature, pressure, and atmospheric conditions. There is a very narrow habitable range in any solar system. That is exactly why we do not expect life as we know it to be found in our solar system in our solar system. That does not rule out that microbial life may have existed billions of years ago on Mars. But there is exactly zero evidence of that to this point, so currently it is just fanciful speculation.

But the point you made originally, as I understand it, is that you were mystified as to why there is not life elsewhere in our universe. I do not find it mystifying at all, given what we know.

I happen to think life is exceedingly rare and precious. Life as we know it can only exist in an infinitesimally small range of physical conditions which exist in this universe -- conditions that Earth - and perhaps Earth uniquely - has in this solar system. I do not think the Star Trek paradigm of life, and especially intelligent life, in mind boggling abundance throughout the universe is even remotely possibly.


As to the flag: son of Russian immigrants and proud of my heritage, language, and cultural milieu.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Read my post again (112), because the bolded is exactly what I said. We are talking past each other.

The bottom line is that life as we know it requires liquid water, which can only exist in a very narrow range of temperature, pressure, and atmospheric conditions. There is a very narrow habitable range in any solar system. That is exactly why we do not expect life as we know it to be found in our solar system in our solar system. That does not rule out that microbial life may have existed billions of years ago on Mars. But there is exactly zero evidence of that to this point, so currently it is just fanciful speculation.

But the point you made originally, as I understand it, is that you were mystified as to why there is not life elsewhere in our universe. I do not find it mystifying at all, given what we know.

I happen to think life is exceedingly rare and precious. Life as we know it can only exist in an infinitesimally small range of physical conditions which exist in this universe -- conditions that Earth - and perhaps Earth uniquely - has in this solar system. I do not think the Star Trek paradigm of life, and especially intelligent life, in mind boggling abundance throughout the universe is even remotely possibly.


As to the flag: son of Russian immigrants and proud of my heritage, language, and cultural milieu.

And you look at life only as we know it! You have no conception that there may be life forms based on completely different elements out there but in our very own solar system. You do understand that just because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you telling me that in your wonderful world of academia this is the only planet in all of outer space to contain life! No sport you prove that book knowledge does not mean intelligence nor common sense.

 

[Cypress]

And you look at life only as we know it! You have no conception that there may be life forms based on completely different elements out there but in our very own solar system. You do understand that just because something hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you telling me that in your wonderful world of academia this is the only planet in all of outer space to contain life!
No sport you prove that book knowledge does not mean intelligence nor common sense.

I am going to ignore your attempt at passive aggressive insult, because I am not going to be the one to lower the decorum here.

I did not say we are the only planet in the universe that may contain life. You need to respond to what I said, and not what you imagined I said.

I am fully aware that we are limited in our understanding of life because we only have experience with carbon-based life.

That does not preclude the possibility of life that is not carbon based.

From the scientific perspective, speculating about non- carbon based life is sheer guesswork. There is no evidence, we cannot test it, and therefore it is not subject to the scientific method. I have purposefully been attempting to limit my responses to the sphere of current knowledge we have reasonable confidence it.

It would be totally bad ass to find silicon-based life, or life that thrives on liquid methane-based reactions rather than water-based biochemistry - but for now that is the purview of fantastical speculation which cannot even be assessed or tested scientifically.