Black People Politics : Molecular Biology, "Blackness" and the Bible

The common ancestry is well known in science. And no, I'm not using AI as a reference. The AI in question belongs to Google and offers up information based on summarizing search results. Here are scientific links you can check out to back what I told you. I'm going to reply to both you and Perfection in this response so I hope they see it too.


"Evidence from fossils, proteins and genetic studies indicates that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor millions of years ago. Most scientists believe that the ‘human’ family tree (known as the sub-group hominin) split from the chimpanzees and other apes about five to seven million years ago."

And you mention @Perfection but they are biased and specifically talking about "recent ancestry". Evolution is about a process that occurs over the course of millions of years. Therefore it goes beyond "recent ancestry" which @Perfection, with all due respect, is stuck on.

Even if you buy into the credential of "a" person who claims to have a background in science, when we talk about science we're not talking about individuals but rather what is the consensus of the scientific community. So if you want to attack me or whatever, that's fine. But I'm only telling you what the consensus of SCIENCE is actually saying. Here's another reference... (no worries, I'll supply more) It is because I'm not new to this debate that I made certain statements and pointed out certain facts for the sake of clarity. You'll see the same in this article:


Once you have read this article there should be NO QUESTION where real biologists stand on the subject. This is not an attempt to discredit @Perfection's credentials or education. But it is dishonest to substitute statements from them to represent science. That's not how science works. You can't just say the sky is green if you disagree then you're under the influence of white supremacy. Science has no need to use such rhetorical arguments because it doesn't exist by way of what people can say but rather what can be proven repeatedly. So read the article and you'll understand.


Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

@Perfection

You say Neil isn't a biologist. That's fair. I'm sure he would agree. However, by the same token you are not an evolutionary biologist. Nor are the credentials or education of your children terribly relevant to your credibility, your education, or your knowledge of evolution or the subject of common ancestry. I'm not even confident you understand the concept since you keep making references to more recent ancestors. This is like saying "Your grandfather certainly was a tall man but your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather never existed and you can't prove he did". Logically, this is a nonsensical non sequitur. In order for recent ancestors to exist they had to come from earlier/older ancestors. And their ancestors came from somewhere too. You cannot unilaterally decide when to cut off the line of ancestry and insert "God" into that gap. Because that's what you're trying to do. But you're not looking at the DNA of all life. You're only looking at and studying the genetics of our more recent ancestors. How do I know this? Because you're not an evolutionary biologist. I am not either, but that's why I get my information from their findings.

And they say:

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms' evolutionary relatedness. It has also led to the development of molecular clock techniques to date taxon divergence times and to calibrate these with the fossil record.

Let's go to a specific example I used to use against Evolution when I was a Christian (and biased in favor of the Genesis creation myth).

I argued (as a teenager) that Evolution was impossible due to the complexity of the human eye. I was wrong. But it goes further than that.

quote: For example, although camera-like eyes are believed to have evolved independently on many separate occasions,[6] they share a common set of light-sensing proteins (opsins), suggesting a common point of origin for all sighted creatures

What I didn't understand when I was a young Christian was that there are previous versions of "eyes" as an entire construct. And the ability to sense light, if allowed to be its own system that can evolve, means that different species could take the same system, have different needs or environmental conditions through which to develop that need, and the ability to sense light can grow in complexity, leading to more complex eyes. You are so used to different organisms having eyes that you don't think about why they do or where they came from. The easiest answer that prevents us from truly thinking critically is when we simply believe "God did it". This "answer" removes our need to think or investigate further and so we don't. This is why a biologist may have limits that an evolutionary biologist doesn't have. But other biologists accept the research, testing, and results and therefore the consensus is in support of what evolutionary biologists have found to be true.

quote: For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[10][11] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.

Again... I want to make this clear. ANCESTRY means that we DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS but rather we BOTH came from a common ancestor. The fact that there is a 6.6% difference with baboons shows how close we are to primates in general but even closer to certain ones. So we don't need cute videos of monkey business. We just need a numeric representation of the difference between our DNA and I've showed this from the Wikipedia article.

Here's more evidence:

(proof from Endogenous Retroviruses)

There's a chance one or both you will not watch this video that absolutely proves Evolution and common ancestry through DNA I will summarize briefly so that the only way to determine if my summary is accurate is for you to watch the video yourself which I highly recommend anyway.

The video is trying to explain that all species get infected by viruses. When that happens (retroviruses) the virus leaves a sequence in our DNA. And we can pass this sequence on to our kids. When that happens, its in the very same spot in both our DNA code. If you and your pet are both infected at the same time by the same retrovirus it is NOT going to attach to the exact same place in your DNA. That means that the chances of having multiple endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences matching up is statistically impossible unless you're in the same family. So the proof of evolution has been copied by DNA. If you want to say you studied DNA... fine. Have you studied the DNA of chimps? Feel free to look for yourself. But if you are a biologist you should understand the weight and meaning of the information you have just been provided. You can do with it what you will but please don't try to dispute it without resources and a very good explanation. This isn't even the "junk DNA" argument I normally use. This is DNA that we know the purpose of so we know how it got there.


You're all over the place. So much so, you're getting me confused with your discussion with Ms. Dove.

But even in your response to Ms. Dove, you haven't answered my question so I will just drop it because you obviously can't fill in the blank. No worries, just keep practicing you'll become better as a defense writer. (black thumbs-up).
 
You're all over the place. So much so, you're getting me confused with your discussion with Ms. Dove.

But even in your response to Ms. Dove, you haven't answered my question so I will just drop it because you obviously can't fill in the blank. No worries, just keep practicing you'll become better as a defense writer. (black thumbs-up).
@Perfection

You know what? YOU ARE RIGHT! I apologize for confusing you with Chevron Dove. I make no excuses but I think maybe all the stress I've been under lately had a hand in it. When you asked about where humans came from Chevron Dove quoted my response to you and then said @Perfection As a graduate in Biology... and in my mind I think that's where you kind of switched places as far as names and who was saying what. So yes. I apologize for that. My mistake.


So let's back up. First you asked this:
So, you support the idea that we come from monkeys?

This is something I never said. I corrected your question by saying that we have common ancestry. You then tried to amend your question to this:

So where does science say humans come from? (My apologies, but I don't think you mentioned that. You noted humans and monkeys have a common ancestry but you didn't note where humans come from).

Like the previous question, this is also something SCIENCE NEVER SAID. And I didn't say that it did. So you can't (I mean you can try but it's a logical fallacy) ask me to explain where something science says something came from when science doesn't say it came from anywhere. What does that mean? Again, as I tried to explain... this is why we have to be careful. I know you didn't like my answer because it doesn't fall into your trap, but the problem is that people try to make it out like science is telling ONE definitive story when that's not the reality.

You can accept this or not.

History is like a puzzle. Certain pieces we know. Certain pieces we have unearthed and have fossils and archaeological evidence. Science is the process of gaining knowledge. It isn't God and doesn't propose to have all the answers to the entire puzzle already. It only proposes a method for finding out. Evolution is one piece of that puzzle. That's what was being discussed. If you want to know where LIFE came from that is a DIFFERENT PIECE of the puzzle and must be discussed separately from Evolution. This is why I asked if you understood the difference. Science isn't ONE GUY coming up with all the puzzle pieces. It's many many people working on different pieces; just like biologists work on different pieces from evolutionary biologists and virologists.

You cannot combat one puzzle piece and all of its definitive findings and evidence by saying "but what about this piece?" That's not how science works. The confidence in each piece is not the same. And you cannot attack the credibility of science by attacking the lack of confidence or discovery in one piece. Scientists are still trying to figure it out. No one is required to have answers to all pieces before having complete confidence about their own piece that they have dedicated their lives to studying.

Saying "there's no way you can engage in a scientific/biological discussion regarding abiogenesis if you can't fill in the blank" about where science says humans came from is simply not true. You simply may not want to because it doesn't align with the reason you asked the question! But IT MUST BE LEFT BLANK because science has not filled in that piece of the puzzle yet! You're asking me like someone said something... what did they say... when 'they' haven't said anything because 'they' aren't sure. Many might say it was a series of chemical reactions but that's not what SCIENCE is saying because it's still being debated.


So it would be dishonest for me to say "science says this" when science is still debating the subject. So all we can do is talk about the different theories under debate, but that's not what you're looking for. You're looking for an answer; one single definitive answer. And that doesn't exist. At least not yet. But just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean science is wrong. And THAT is the point I am trying to make.
 
So what you're saying is that science doesn't know, and, by default-connection, you don't know...am I correct?

Yes, that is correct. I do not know what science doesn't know.

When we don't KNOW things we typically have beliefs. The difference is that science has a process to divide knowledge from belief where as believers treat beliefs as if they are knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with having beliefs. The problem comes in when beliefs are confused for knowledge. Even if you believe something strongly it still doesn't make it a fact.

Therefore, in science, there are theories about abiogenesis that are simply not on the level of evolution. They may still be worth discussing but only with the caveat that we know it is a much weaker argument.
 
So what you're saying is that science doesn't know, and, by default-connection, you don't know...am I correct?

One more thing. And I feel like this is very important.

There are many people who confuse beliefs for knowledge under the premise that these are things that MUST BE KNOWN. That is not true.

It is okay not to know everything. A lot of people run to religion to explain EVERYTHING because in their heads it isn't okay that they don't have all these answers.

But it IS okay.

People make other people feel bad for not having all the answers as if that means there's something wrong. But there's nothing wrong with not being willing to invent or make up lies to fill in the gaps. And people don't even know they're lies because they buy into this whole system of belief that they must believe... that belief itself is a virtue... and that God knows everything and so, by "default-connection", 'they' have access to all the answers even if they haven't asked every question. And I'm saying this as someone who used to be of that same mindset, so I know exactly how it is and how people feel. I understand the security that people feel when they believe everything is known and/or planned.

But it IS okay.
 

Latest profile posts

Destee wrote on Cindy's profile.
YAAAAAAAAAAY @Cindy ... :love:
Destee wrote on frankster's profile.
:wave:
Back
Top