[Guy_Fawkes]

I think his problem is he doesnt read:

$1:

Humans are more closely related to orangutans than chimps or gorillas, claims a controversial new theory that flies in the face of accepted science.

According to scientists Jeffrey Schwartz and John Grehan, humans and orangutans may have evolved from populations of an orang-like ancestor, rather than the chimpanzee, which is the mainstream scientific opinion.

The headline is misleading but thats why people read the whole article.

[EdwardRI]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Now we find that one theory of evolution, anthropologists who believe modern humans evolved from Neanderthals, may be about to “hit the scientific dust” due to DNA.

The current DNA finding has modern man as a “cousin” of Neanderthals, but apparently not a “kissing” cousin as there seems to be lack of “interbreeding” DNA. We also find that over 700 scientists have added their name to a growing list of scientists, including biochemists and geneticists, who have “dissented” from Darwinism and natural selection while the mainstreet media continues to report only “one side” of this very serious debate about man’s origins.


Darwins theory of evolution is a 19th century thery which is losing ground every day.

Biochemists and geneticists, in reasonably-sized numbers, speaking out against natural selection? Unless they're playing with semantics, that doesn't make sense.

Do you have a reliable source for this? I'd like to know who these biochemists and geneticists are.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EdwardRI EdwardRI:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

EdwardRI EdwardRI:

I think the problem here is that you don't know what evolution is.

Actually I do, but hey, I'm not the one that wrote the article saying we now "evolved" from orangutans. Maybe you should question the article's author on the definition.

I glanced over the article and remember reading that there is a theory that we are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees. The notion that we've evolved from a species still alive seems fairly ridiculous, given the average lifetimes of both organisms compared. Closely related, however, seems a much more reasonable concept to theorize.

THAT is what I'm talking about. Even the title refers to this whole concept as a theory. But I guess the ape-like chest thumpers on here didn't bother to read it.

[Guy_Fawkes]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Now we find that one theory of evolution, anthropologists who believe modern humans evolved from Neanderthals, may be about to “hit the scientific dust” due to DNA.

The current DNA finding has modern man as a “cousin” of Neanderthals, but apparently not a “kissing” cousin as there seems to be lack of “interbreeding” DNA. We also find that over 700 scientists have added their name to a growing list of scientists, including biochemists and geneticists, who have “dissented” from Darwinism and natural selection while the mainstreet media continues to report only “one side” of this very serious debate about man’s origins.


Darwins theory of evolution is a 19th century thery which is losing ground every day.

Do you have a list of these 700 scientits?
Im still waiting for answers for my earlier questions.

[Zipperfish]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Now we find that one theory of evolution, anthropologists who believe modern humans evolved from Neanderthals, may be about to “hit the scientific dust” due to DNA.

The current DNA finding has modern man as a “cousin” of Neanderthals, but apparently not a “kissing” cousin as there seems to be lack of “interbreeding” DNA. We also find that over 700 scientists have added their name to a growing list of scientists, including biochemists and geneticists, who have “dissented” from Darwinism and natural selection while the mainstreet media continues to report only “one side” of this very serious debate about man’s origins.


Darwins theory of evolution is a 19th century thery which is losing ground every day.

Just because there are two sides, does not mean the two sides are equal. In the case of natural selection, the side that thinks it does not exist is very small, and considering there tiny numbers, they actually do quite well in the popular press, probably because they spend more time trying to convincepeople theya re right through the media than they do by conducting any actual science to support their viewpoint.

I wouldn't say that Darwin is losing ground. The creationists had a pretty good run wiht teh "Intelligent Design" business, but got spanked down pretty good once people realized what they were up to (trying to bring religion into science class).

[Guy_Fawkes]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

THAT is what I'm talking about. Even the title refers to this whole concept as a theory. But I guess the ape-like chest thumpers on here didn't bother to read it.

When used in a scientific context, theory does not mean casual guess, you tool.

Again let me hold up the Theory of Relativity, not a guess. It might not explain everything but its the best explanation we have at the moment. Science is fluid and is meant to be refined, if there was a better explanation of the diversity of life and the origin of species I would argue that, but there isnt.

[EdwardRI]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

EdwardRI EdwardRI:

I glanced over the article and remember reading that there is a theory that we are more closely related to orangutans than to chimpanzees. The notion that we've evolved from a species still alive seems fairly ridiculous, given the average lifetimes of both organisms compared. Closely related, however, seems a much more reasonable concept to theorize.

THAT is what I'm talking about. Even the title refers to this whole concept as a theory. But I guess the ape-like chest thumpers on here didn't bother to read it.

The title seemed very suspicious to me, which is why I read the article. It's a poorly designed title, yes.

The theory you're talking about is not "evolution", it merely involves it. You spoke out against evolution. Evolution is as much fact as DNA is. How factual DNA is, I will not get into. I don't have the patience to nitpick the semantics I see being discussed in this thread.

[Zipperfish]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

THAT is what I'm talking about. Even the title refers to this whole concept as a theory. But I guess the ape-like chest thumpers on here didn't bother to read it.

When used in a scientific context, theory does not mean casual guess, you tool.

Again let me hold up the Theory of Relativity, not a guess. It might not explain everything but its the best explanation we have at the moment. Science is fluid and is meant to be refined, if there was a better explanation of the diversity of life and the origin of species I would argue that, but there isnt.

Interestingly enough, the Theory of Relativity replaced the Law of Conservation of Mass.. SO much for the immutability of science laws.

[ManifestDestiny]

Here you go.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

[ManifestDestiny]

Each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

[Guy_Fawkes]

That is what you have? A link to the discovery institute, they are devout creationists, not the best place to go to for good science.

[Guy_Fawkes]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Evolution is on the diversity of life not the origin, that is abiogenisis.

[ManifestDestiny]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

Evolution is on the diversity of life not the origin, that is abiogenisis.

Are you sure?
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution!

[EdwardRI]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Do you know what bacteria are? What about plasmids? Virii?

Assuming the world is a bit older than 6,000 years, I don't think it's a stretch that complex organisms could eventually arise. A billion years is a really, really long time, especially when the "lifetime" of simple organisms is minutes long.

[Biblesmasher]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I like how evolution is being taught in schools as fact when in FACT, it is still a THEORY. Even the "educated" masses that believe in evolution conveniently forget it's a theory still and thusly UNPROVEN.

HAHHAHAHHAHHA. Wow just wow.