Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mordecai

Shocking Discovery Flies in the Face of Neo-Darwinian Tradition

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I don't follow you.....so the human race (mammals) were going along and then suddenly we got the ability to digest milk?...which was caused by two regulatory gene mutations in two populations at two different times...What were all the humans feeding their babies before that? 

" In many cultures, especially in the West, humans continue to consume milk beyond infancy, using the milk of other mammals (especially cattle, goats and sheep) as a food product. Initially, the ability to digest milk was limited to children as adults did not produce lactase, an enzyme necessary for digesting the lactose in milk. People therefore converted milk to curd, cheese and other products to reduce the levels of lactose. Thousands of years ago, a chance mutation spread in human populations in Europe that enabled the production of lactase in adulthood. This mutation allowed milk to be used as a new source of nutrition which could sustain populations when other food sources failed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Food_product_for_humans

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, snowflake said:

I don't follow you.....so the human race (mammals) were going along and then suddenly we got the ability to digest milk?...which was caused by two regulatory gene mutations in two populations at two different times...What were all the humans feeding their babies before that? 

Babies can digest milk of course until about weaning age, then regulatory genes shut off the production of the enzyme (lactase) that allows for milk digestion. This was the default human condition until about 10-13 kya when the first lactase persistence mutation occurred in Europe (that we know of). This allowed people in this population to continue to digest milk into adulthood and was advantageous enough nutritionally to spread through large segments of Europe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/5/2018 at 7:42 PM, The Nehor said:

Another explanation is that most species were reduced to a small breeding population due to some event (an ice age for example would be the most likely) and this interbreeding blended to (in a way) standardize mitochondrial DNA. What would be interesting would be to go back in time before whatever caused this and check them. It could be cyclical and we would find their mitochondrial DNA was as old as the last major climate shifts/cataclysm.

So, you think it's plausible that everything was wiped out in just the right way, so that 90% of what we see today is a new species? That makes no sense with anything other than maybe microbes. If it were that easy, the researcher himself wouldn't be "fighting it as hard as he could." As I said, mass destruction can't produce variety. A small breeding population doesn't produce a new species, either. It either kills the creature off, or they stay the same. The reason being, you need a large population to supply opportunities for beneficial or functional mutations. Smaller populations just reduce opportunities. With the largest breeding population you can get, under ideal circumstances, it will _still_ take 30 million years to produce a single coordinated mutation in large mammals. A small population means, it will take far longer. You need more creatures to get more mutations. Not fewer. Makes no sense, from the standpoint of population genetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/6/2018 at 9:50 AM, katherine the great said:

Nah. Our origin in on this planet (or a planet that is identical to ours). Think about all of the vitamins, minerals and elements we need to sustain life. We depend on the inorganic to maintain the organic. We are connected in the flesh to this very planet. We don't need another planet for our mortality--just this planet. Even the creation stories in the scriptures support this idea.

God or extremely advanced aliens couldn't have created or terraformed planets like ours? Or maybe our planet was terraformed to be like another? Or adapt creatures from other planets to this planet? The reason I disagree with Darwin's theory is, it doesn't fit the fossil record at all. Not even close. How did whales evolve from pakicetus to durodon in a mere 9 million years? That makes _no_ sense _at all_ from a Darwinian standpoint. And body plans are the most coordinated, with respect to interdependent mutations. So again, how in the world did pakicetus become durodon in a mere 9 million years. The tail flukes! The heat exchanges! The completely aquatic body plan! Impossible! Mathematically, it's literally impossible. But with infinite time or some amount of time that is beyond our imagination, it's possible. So durodon and pakicetus may have been transplanted from somewhere else but in that somewhere else, there is a good explanation as to why they appear related. Possibly a Darwinian process or related to Darwinian processes.

Edited by Mordecai

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Babies can digest milk of course until about weaning age, then regulatory genes shut off the production of the enzyme (lactase) that allows for milk digestion. This was the default human condition until about 10-13 kya when the first lactase persistence mutation occurred in Europe (that we know of). This allowed people in this population to continue to digest milk into adulthood and was advantageous enough nutritionally to spread through large segments of Europe.

I wonder where the Maasai of Africa got their lactase persistence?

https://www.wired.com/2012/09/milk-meat-and-blood-how-diet-drives-natural-selection-in-the-maasai/

The solution proposed in this paper actually smacks of Lysenkoism.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mordecai said:

God or extremely advanced aliens couldn't have created or terraformed planets like ours? Or maybe our planet was terraformed to be like another? Or adapt creatures from other planets to this planet? The reason I disagree with Darwin's theory is, it doesn't fit the fossil record at all. Not even close. How did whales evolve from pakicetus to durodon in a mere 9 million years? That makes _no_ sense _at all_ from a Darwinian standpoint. And body plans are the most coordinated, with respect to interdependent mutations. So again, how in the world did pakicetus become durodon in a mere 9 million years. The tail flukes! The heat exchanges! The completely aquatic body plan! Impossible! Mathematically, it's literally impossible. But with infinite time or some amount of time that is beyond our imagination, it's possible. So durodon and pakicetus may have been transplanted from somewhere else but in that somewhere else, there is a good explanation as to why they appear related. Possibly a Darwinian process or related to Darwinian processes.

You know, Mordecai, you might consider using the editing tools to emphasize what you want to emphasize, rather than using underscores.  

Instead of "makes _no_ sense _at all" you could have "makes no sense at all", "makes no sense at all" or "makes no sense at all". It would stand out better, at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mordecai said:

So, you think it's plausible that everything was wiped out in just the right way, so that 90% of what we see today is a new species? That makes no sense with anything other than maybe microbes. If it were that easy, the researcher himself wouldn't be "fighting it as hard as he could." As I said, mass destruction can't produce variety. A small breeding population doesn't produce a new species, either. It either kills the creature off, or they stay the same. The reason being, you need a large population to supply opportunities for beneficial or functional mutations. Smaller populations just reduce opportunities. With the largest breeding population you can get, under ideal circumstances, it will _still_ take 30 million years to produce a single coordinated mutation in large mammals. A small population means, it will take far longer. You need more creatures to get more mutations. Not fewer. Makes no sense, from the standpoint of population genetics.

Wrong. It is much easier for a genetic abnormality (that may have already existed) to sweep over a small population than a large one....especially in a catastrophic situation where that abnormality has survival value.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I wonder where the Maasai of Africa got their lactase persistence?

https://www.wired.com/2012/09/milk-meat-and-blood-how-diet-drives-natural-selection-in-the-maasai/

The solution proposed in this paper actually smacks of Lysenkoism.

The second (separate) mutation for lactase persistence that I mentioned earlier occurred among African pastoralists. They may have been ancestral to the Maasai. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Mordecai said:

God or extremely advanced aliens couldn't have created or terraformed planets like ours? Or maybe our planet was terraformed to be like another? Or adapt creatures from other planets to this planet? The reason I disagree with Darwin's theory is, it doesn't fit the fossil record at all. Not even close. How did whales evolve from pakicetus to durodon in a mere 9 million years? That makes _no_ sense _at all_ from a Darwinian standpoint. And body plans are the most coordinated, with respect to interdependent mutations. So again, how in the world did pakicetus become durodon in a mere 9 million years. The tail flukes! The heat exchanges! The completely aquatic body plan! Impossible! Mathematically, it's literally impossible. But with infinite time or some amount of time that is beyond our imagination, it's possible. So durodon and pakicetus may have been transplanted from somewhere else but in that somewhere else, there is a good explanation as to why they appear related. Possibly a Darwinian process or related to Darwinian processes.

Again, beneficial regulatory gene mutations can cause relatively quick evolutionary changes. But you seem firm in your alien convictions, so I will cease to reason with you on this topic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Mordecai said:

God or extremely advanced aliens couldn't have created or terraformed planets like ours? Or maybe our planet was terraformed to be like another? Or adapt creatures from other planets to this planet? The reason I disagree with Darwin's theory is, it doesn't fit the fossil record at all. Not even close. How did whales evolve from pakicetus to durodon in a mere 9 million years? That makes _no_ sense _at all_ from a Darwinian standpoint. And body plans are the most coordinated, with respect to interdependent mutations. So again, how in the world did pakicetus become durodon in a mere 9 million years. The tail flukes! The heat exchanges! The completely aquatic body plan! Impossible! Mathematically, it's literally impossible. But with infinite time or some amount of time that is beyond our imagination, it's possible. So durodon and pakicetus may have been transplanted from somewhere else but in that somewhere else, there is a good explanation as to why they appear related. Possibly a Darwinian process or related to Darwinian processes.

I think you got lost. The “History” channel ancient aliens theorist forum is over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2018 at 9:24 PM, The Nehor said:

I think you got lost. The “History” channel ancient aliens theorist forum is over there.

I don't know, The Nehor. If God terraformed a world, don't you think He would have done a good enough job that we couldn't distinguish it from a non-terraformed one?

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know, The Nehor. If God terraformed a world, don't you think He would have done a good enough job that we couldn't distinguish it from a non-terraformed one?

That assumes God's intent was to hide his handiwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2018 at 12:47 AM, The Nehor said:

That assumes God's intent was to hide his handiwork.

The mark of a master artisan is to make it look as if the work has done itself.  Tool marks, for example, are a sign of an inferior craftsman.

And he did not need to want to hide it.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The mark of a master artisan is to make it look as if the work has done itself.  Tool marks, for example, are a sign of an inferior craftsman.

And he did not need to want to hide it.

Analogy does not work. No one looks at a beautiful painting or building or statue and argues it came about without a creator.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Analogy does not work. No one looks at a beautiful painting or building or statue and argues it came about without a creator.

And brush strokes are part of the signature of painters and how forgeries are determined.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609524/this-ai-can-spot-art-forgeries-by-looking-at-one-brushstroke/

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Analogy does not work. No one looks at a beautiful painting or building or statue and argues it came about without a creator.

No, they do not, but the point I'm trying to make is that the craftsman hides his or her tracks.  If God were to craft a statue of a horse, would it look like a real horse, despite being made of unalive materials?  Of course he would.  He wouldn't make it look like a five-year-old's attempt.

I've been living in England for the past several months, and one of the things I've noticed is the landscape.  Many people, unfamiliar with the history, would look at the landscape and swoon over the naturalness of it all.  For example, Dartmoor, in Devon:

dartmoor-sliders2.jpg

This starkly beautiful natural landscape is well-known and celebrated. My wife and I spent part of last weekend wandering through it, and it is truly beautiful. But it is as natural as your lawn.  The fact is, when humans arrived on Great Britain (the island) this area was a forest.  Over time humans cut it down and turned it into a parking lot -- props to Joanie Mitchell's song, "Big Yellow Taxi" -- and now you'll find organizations which want to preserve this "great natural wonder".  Its origin is well-hidden, is it not?  And granted, the actors who crafted this landscape did it as a side-effect of their economic activities and not as a conscious work of art, they are now as anonymous as God, and nobody sees them in it.

When I look at the Universe -- and not just the pretty pictures you find in coffee-table books -- I see Dartmoor.  It all looks so very natural, yet the underlying order whispers "Creator" at every point of interest.  It's easy to look at it all and see nothing but randomness and self-organization -- as if there were no such thing as entropy (which is the principle that says everything proceeds from order to disorder when left to itself).  Protons are made up of two up and one down quarks.  Neutrons are made up of two down and one up quark.  Besides up and down quarks, there are also the more massive charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks. The interactions between quarks and leptons and the various forces (gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) and the particles which mediate between them (gluons, bosons, and so on) form what we see as the Universe. I cannot escape the feeling that it is all very much an artificial construct, that is, a created structure obeying the rules set into place by its Creator.  And yet we look on it and marvel at it as if it made itself.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/14/2018 at 2:53 AM, Stargazer said:

No, they do not, but the point I'm trying to make is that the craftsman hides his or her tracks.  If God were to craft a statue of a horse, would it look like a real horse, despite being made of unalive materials?  Of course he would.  He wouldn't make it look like a five-year-old's attempt.

I've been living in England for the past several months, and one of the things I've noticed is the landscape.  Many people, unfamiliar with the history, would look at the landscape and swoon over the naturalness of it all.  For example, Dartmoor, in Devon:

dartmoor-sliders2.jpg

This starkly beautiful natural landscape is well-known and celebrated. My wife and I spent part of last weekend wandering through it, and it is truly beautiful. But it is as natural as your lawn.  The fact is, when humans arrived on Great Britain (the island) this area was a forest.  Over time humans cut it down and turned it into a parking lot -- props to Joanie Mitchell's song, "Big Yellow Taxi" -- and now you'll find organizations which want to preserve this "great natural wonder".  Its origin is well-hidden, is it not?  And granted, the actors who crafted this landscape did it as a side-effect of their economic activities and not as a conscious work of art, they are now as anonymous as God, and nobody sees them in it.

When I look at the Universe -- and not just the pretty pictures you find in coffee-table books -- I see Dartmoor.  It all looks so very natural, yet the underlying order whispers "Creator" at every point of interest.  It's easy to look at it all and see nothing but randomness and self-organization -- as if there were no such thing as entropy (which is the principle that says everything proceeds from order to disorder when left to itself).  Protons are made up of two up and one down quarks.  Neutrons are made up of two down and one up quark.  Besides up and down quarks, there are also the more massive charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks. The interactions between quarks and leptons and the various forces (gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) and the particles which mediate between them (gluons, bosons, and so on) form what we see as the Universe. I cannot escape the feeling that it is all very much an artificial construct, that is, a created structure obeying the rules set into place by its Creator.  And yet we look on it and marvel at it as if it made itself.  

It did make itself. In fact even in Mormon theology, the universe (or more vitally, existence itself) creates Gods. Makes you think - maybe the universe itself is God. :)

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Gray said:

It did make itself. In fact even in Mormon theology, the universe (or more vitally, existence itself) creates Gods. Makes you think - maybe the universe itself is God. :)

Very poetic!  And from a certain point of view, I suppose that it did make itself, but only in the sense that having been given the laws, it follows them with exactitude, and the result allows us to see God.

But we don't have instruments that are able to see past the visible universe, so whatever lies behind it remains out of sight, and out of our understanding.  And so we wait for the picture to become complete.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/18/2018 at 7:08 PM, Gray said:

It did make itself. In fact even in Mormon theology, the universe (or more vitally, existence itself) creates Gods. Makes you think - maybe the universe itself is God. :)

Could you elaborate on how in Mormon theology the universe creates Gods please? You are implying the universe was around first.?.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Could you elaborate on how in Mormon theology the universe creates Gods please? You are implying the universe was around first.?.

More precisely, existence. Existence gives rise to Gods, Gods organize existence into galaxies or universes or what have you. In Mormon theology every intelligence is past-eternal, but intelligences develop into Gods over time - they were not always Gods.

Edited by Gray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

More precisely, existence. Existence gives rise to Gods, Gods organize existence into galaxies or universes or what have you. In Mormon theology every intelligence is past-eternal, but intelligences develop into Gods over time - they were not always Gods.

From what i understand in Mormon theology we were "intelligences" before we became "spirits", and that once one becomes a spirit they are a "god" or "baby god"?  How does that work with Heavenly Father and Mother creating spirits? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Could you elaborate on how in Mormon theology the universe creates Gods please? You are implying the universe was around first.?.

I shouldn't take him seriously, if I were you. I'm sure he thinks he's serious, but the idea that the universe created God is, quite frankly, fruitcake.

God created the Universe, as we see it.  God may even have created multiple Universes.  What is outside this Universe, however, is where God dwells, and is clearly beyond us in this stage of our existence.  I'm sure we'll understand it better, later.  Like after Judgement Day.  Maybe a few months afterwards.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

More precisely, existence. Existence gives rise to Gods, Gods organize existence into galaxies or universes or what have you. In Mormon theology every intelligence is past-eternal, but intelligences develop into Gods over time - they were not always Gods.

OK, maybe I can see that.  It's a better statement than your earlier one.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

From what i understand in Mormon theology we were "intelligences" before we became "spirits", and that once one becomes a spirit they are a "god" or "baby god"?  How does that work with Heavenly Father and Mother creating spirits? 

Spirits are "organized" from intelligences, not created from nothing.  

And none of it makes the slightest bit of sense, even if it is true.  All you have to do is try to wrap your head around quantum mechanics to get the firm idea that in our present state of existence there is no possible way we can understand the underlying principles of it all.  Even the Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman once said "If you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics."  Even Stephen Hawking is probably lost in the woods.  Was.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

From what i understand in Mormon theology we were "intelligences" before we became "spirits", and that once one becomes a spirit they are a "god" or "baby god"?  How does that work with Heavenly Father and Mother creating spirits? 

It's kind of ambiguous what intelligences actually means. It may just be the same thing as spirits.

The most intelligent intelligences are the human beings, who have the capacity to develop into full Gods, but most won't.

That doesn't fit at all with Heavenly Father and Mother creating spirits. It's a paradox that hasn't been addressed. The intelligences doctrine came first, followed by the heavenly procreation doctrine. It's unclear how they might be reconciled, but of course we can speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×