Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
Lmao, now youre giving these commom diehard creationists people vibe by saying human evolved from primates. Not only that, but youre saying this is fact as well. Are you really a doctor lmfao
There is a reason why the scientist, Professor Theobald, that started the trend to apply formal computational statistics method says it is still an open debate and is controversial despite finding that the probability of the UCA model being true is 10^2860 more likely than the hypotheses of multiple ancestors. Because, as i said again and again, it gives a strong bias to the UCA model by assuming that the UCA is indeed the correct model.
Since it's still not getting through your head, i will take an anology in math.
As you most likely know, prime numbers are numbers that is divisble only by 1 and itself. Usually, mathematician work with prime numbers through the use of Fermat Little Theorem. Basically, assuming a number X is indeed a prime number, then Fermat little theorem holds true. However, there are these numbers, the pseudoprimes, that are actually composites but follow the rule exactly how the prime numbers do. And this is a major problem especially in cryptography, because in reality we are not 100% sure that the number is indeed a prime number. So if we happen to find a number Y that follows Fermat little theorem, it doesn't necessarily mean Y is a prime number, it could be a pseudoprime. This is exactly the same scenario as the UCA model. It gives the assumption that can not empirically be tested yet that the UCA model is indeed true.
Why are you both so fucking deaf lmfao.
This is in fact about certain eukaryotes having different origins.
The indepent origins hypotheses proposed by Hasegawa is only one of several hypotheses currently being discussed on. My primary point is not the independent origins hypothese, but rather the unreliability of the current UCA model. This open possibilities to several alternatives as i already said again and again, and the independent origins is one of them.
You're making it as if i am advocating for the hypotheses proposed by Hasegawa, when in fact im trying to say that the UCA model is becoming more and more unreliable and that it starts to become open to several alternatives, including the one proposed by Hasegawa.
I also already said one of the alternative that might prove that human might have a different ancestor than chimp is the web of life model. It basically opens possibilites that the eukaryotes ancestry of the animals might have been from a different set of ancestors than the eukaryotes ancestry of human.
Another point i would like to emphasize is the fact that scientists would never be able to prove if modern human evolved or were created in the present form because they said it themselves there are no direct evidence that human evolved from a single cell organism. But rather, they infer that the similar DNA might imply common ancestry. There is no rule in Abrahamic religion that says God have to create human from different cells than that of animals. Evolution and Abrahamic religion would never directly opposes each other. Read also my reply to Tejas above
There is a reason why the scientist, Professor Theobald, that started the trend to apply formal computational statistics method says it is still an open debate and is controversial despite finding that the probability of the UCA model being true is 10^2860 more likely than the hypotheses of multiple ancestors. Because, as i said again and again, it gives a strong bias to the UCA model by assuming that the UCA is indeed the correct model.
Since it's still not getting through your head, i will take an anology in math.
As you most likely know, prime numbers are numbers that is divisble only by 1 and itself. Usually, mathematician work with prime numbers through the use of Fermat Little Theorem. Basically, assuming a number X is indeed a prime number, then Fermat little theorem holds true. However, there are these numbers, the pseudoprimes, that are actually composites but follow the rule exactly how the prime numbers do. And this is a major problem especially in cryptography, because in reality we are not 100% sure that the number is indeed a prime number. So if we happen to find a number Y that follows Fermat little theorem, it doesn't necessarily mean Y is a prime number, it could be a pseudoprime. This is exactly the same scenario as the UCA model. It gives the assumption that can not empirically be tested yet that the UCA model is indeed true.
Why are you both so fucking deaf lmfao.
This is in fact about certain eukaryotes having different origins.
The indepent origins hypotheses proposed by Hasegawa is only one of several hypotheses currently being discussed on. My primary point is not the independent origins hypothese, but rather the unreliability of the current UCA model. This open possibilities to several alternatives as i already said again and again, and the independent origins is one of them.
You're making it as if i am advocating for the hypotheses proposed by Hasegawa, when in fact im trying to say that the UCA model is becoming more and more unreliable and that it starts to become open to several alternatives, including the one proposed by Hasegawa.
I also already said one of the alternative that might prove that human might have a different ancestor than chimp is the web of life model. It basically opens possibilites that the eukaryotes ancestry of the animals might have been from a different set of ancestors than the eukaryotes ancestry of human.
Another point i would like to emphasize is the fact that scientists would never be able to prove if modern human evolved or were created in the present form because they said it themselves there are no direct evidence that human evolved from a single cell organism. But rather, they infer that the similar DNA might imply common ancestry. There is no rule in Abrahamic religion that says God have to create human from different cells than that of animals. Evolution and Abrahamic religion would never directly opposes each other. Read also my reply to Tejas above
So to make it clear: does any of the not-scientific papers you posted support something like not every mammal having the same common ancestor, or for the matter two genera seemingly related at many more specific levels (like Homo and Pan), or it stops at the most basic level of life? How big is the jump you are trying to pass here in order to convince people that humans aren't primates?
Everybody understood what you posted and what you're trying to do here. We weren't born yesterday.
Everybody understood what you posted and what you're trying to do here. We weren't born yesterday.
So now you're saying that these well-known biologists produce not-scientific papers lmao. One of them even has a h-index of over 80, when 60 is already considered exceptional. One of them is also a top 2% scientist.
It's not something whether it supports not every mammal share the same common ancestor, but rather proving these clueless self claimed scientific atheists that UCA and the hypotheses that human and chimp share a common ancestor is not the end of all. But if you really want to know the answer, than yes maybe, at least for the web of life model. The eukaryotes that later evolved into animals or plant or fungi might have descended from a different set of ancestors than the eukaryotes of human.
Another point you misunderstood is that, i'm not trying to convince people that human aren't primates. I do believe that human was created in their present form by God, but i do acknowledge this is solely my faith and im not forcing people to agree with me. But as opposed to the propaganda that you believe, it doesnt directly goes against science.
I'll quote this again,
It's not something whether it supports not every mammal share the same common ancestor, but rather proving these clueless self claimed scientific atheists that UCA and the hypotheses that human and chimp share a common ancestor is not the end of all. But if you really want to know the answer, than yes maybe, at least for the web of life model. The eukaryotes that later evolved into animals or plant or fungi might have descended from a different set of ancestors than the eukaryotes of human.
Another point you misunderstood is that, i'm not trying to convince people that human aren't primates. I do believe that human was created in their present form by God, but i do acknowledge this is solely my faith and im not forcing people to agree with me. But as opposed to the propaganda that you believe, it doesnt directly goes against science.
I'll quote this again,
you mean the one who researched when the human-ape split happened in our ancestry?
you take research about our most distant relation to infer our closest relation is not actually a relation at all. not to mention the research being old af and not even proving that eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea have independent ancestors. you are just reaching like crazy and if anyone takes some 15 minutes to read the science you cite, they see that its not supporting your claims at all.
it does go against science and its wrong.
[automerge]1679143609[/automerge]
except thats not what @Charlotte Horchata said at all.?!
you take research about our most distant relation to infer our closest relation is not actually a relation at all. not to mention the research being old af and not even proving that eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea have independent ancestors. you are just reaching like crazy and if anyone takes some 15 minutes to read the science you cite, they see that its not supporting your claims at all.
it does go against science and its wrong.
[automerge]1679143609[/automerge]
except thats not what @Charlotte Horchata said at all.?!
Learn to read properly first.
" In all of science, our best t heories may be incor-rect. It is always possible that a biological model may beproposed in the future that explains the data better thanthe UCA models. Clearly I have not tested all possiblemodels, especially those yet to be developed. I empha-size again here, as I have elsewhere [120], that I havenotprovidedabsolute“proof” of UCA. Proof is formathematics and whiskey; it is not found in science.Nevertheless, t hese results provide strong evidence forUCA, given the hypotheses and seque nce data currentlyavailable. As it stands, UCA explains the data best byfar. With the model selection framework it is easy totest a novel, properly specified hypothesis against thecommon ancestry models. The profile model proposedby Koonin and Wolf, however, fails the test."
Just because a number has a possibility of being a pseudoprime, it still doesn't mean it is a non prime if the probability tests favor it being a prime heavily compared to it being a non prime or pseudoprime.
Same is the case here.
UCA and these studies are no where negating the claim of highest probability of human descent from Primates. Until further evidence arrives, humans have descended from primates.
I will give you a medical analogy too. There is no 100% perfect treatment for any condition. We usually select the one with the most probability to to succeed and the least probability to worsen the patient's health
[automerge]1679143775[/automerge]
Also how do you rank scientists lol. It is a sham.
" In all of science, our best t heories may be incor-rect. It is always possible that a biological model may beproposed in the future that explains the data better thanthe UCA models. Clearly I have not tested all possiblemodels, especially those yet to be developed. I empha-size again here, as I have elsewhere [120], that I havenotprovidedabsolute“proof” of UCA. Proof is formathematics and whiskey; it is not found in science.Nevertheless, t hese results provide strong evidence forUCA, given the hypotheses and seque nce data currentlyavailable. As it stands, UCA explains the data best byfar. With the model selection framework it is easy totest a novel, properly specified hypothesis against thecommon ancestry models. The profile model proposedby Koonin and Wolf, however, fails the test."
Just because a number has a possibility of being a pseudoprime, it still doesn't mean it is a non prime if the probability tests favor it being a prime heavily compared to it being a non prime or pseudoprime.
Same is the case here.
UCA and these studies are no where negating the claim of highest probability of human descent from Primates. Until further evidence arrives, humans have descended from primates.
I will give you a medical analogy too. There is no 100% perfect treatment for any condition. We usually select the one with the most probability to to succeed and the least probability to worsen the patient's health
[automerge]1679143775[/automerge]
Also how do you rank scientists lol. It is a sham.
Bruh you definitely didn't read the work of the author of this, what seems to be a rebuttal, claims that he hasn't given absolute proof for UCA and its just a working model that explains the data set best which doesn't disqualify any potential new data set that could come up and topple UCA and estate the next best model to explain Ancestry and similarity
Page 15 : Conclusion
Moreover, the models used in the tests do not assume a priori that significant sequence similarity implies homology. Rather, sequence similarity is a consequence of the common ancestry models, and the common ancestry models simply explain the data best. Hence, the strong results from the model selection tests provide a firm logical basis for relying on the inference from sequence similarity to homology as a general principle , as long as there is no strongly conflicting phylogenetic structure.As in all of science, our best theories may be incorrect. It is always possible that a biological model may be proposed in the future that explains the data better than the UCA models. Clearly I have not tested all possible models, especially those yet to be developed. I emphasize again here, as I have elsewhere [120], that I have not provided absolute “proof” of UCA. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey; it is not found in science.Nevertheless, these results provide strong evidence for
UCA, given the hypotheses and sequence data currently available. As it stands, UCA explains the data best by far (according to his limited modle analysis) . With the model selection framework it is easy totest a novel, properly specified hypothesis against the
common ancestry models. The profile model proposedby Koonin and Wolf, however, fails the test
"
If you had even read the paper yourself you would have understood but ignorance is bliss ig
In various parts of this article the author reiterates that they are using the assumptions like."Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in
similarity between sequences."
On top of that the author also calls UCA a hypothesis even
You can be as pretentious as you want but atleast don't CALIM THAT ITS A FACT WHEN YOU YOURSELVES HAVEN'T A FRIGGIN CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE YAPPIN
JUST COZ SOMETHING IS A WORKING MODEL IT ISN'T A FRIGGIN FACT
HOW BASIC IS THHIS? You need bare minimum competence to understand this.
Congrats you refuted your "factual" premise that UCA is a fact, and papa ape is fact too
When the study you youself quoted refutes the notion of UCA and papa ape theory being a fact
Its isn't
[automerge]1679221402[/automerge]
Seems like you were born yesterday
you're desperate to make it a fact when in reality it isn't which is even confirmed and is based on assumptions of homology (similarly =common ancestry) which isn't necessarily TRUE
none of any academic papers claim factuality THEY CLAIM LIKELYHOOD.. which aren't the same and ofc someone with his head in ass wouldn't Get that
Page 15 : Conclusion
Moreover, the models used in the tests do not assume a priori that significant sequence similarity implies homology. Rather, sequence similarity is a consequence of the common ancestry models, and the common ancestry models simply explain the data best. Hence, the strong results from the model selection tests provide a firm logical basis for relying on the inference from sequence similarity to homology as a general principle , as long as there is no strongly conflicting phylogenetic structure.As in all of science, our best theories may be incorrect. It is always possible that a biological model may be proposed in the future that explains the data better than the UCA models. Clearly I have not tested all possible models, especially those yet to be developed. I emphasize again here, as I have elsewhere [120], that I have not provided absolute “proof” of UCA. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey; it is not found in science.Nevertheless, these results provide strong evidence for
UCA, given the hypotheses and sequence data currently available. As it stands, UCA explains the data best by far (according to his limited modle analysis) . With the model selection framework it is easy totest a novel, properly specified hypothesis against the
common ancestry models. The profile model proposedby Koonin and Wolf, however, fails the test
"
If you had even read the paper yourself you would have understood but ignorance is bliss ig
In various parts of this article the author reiterates that they are using the assumptions like."Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in
similarity between sequences."
On top of that the author also calls UCA a hypothesis even
You can be as pretentious as you want but atleast don't CALIM THAT ITS A FACT WHEN YOU YOURSELVES HAVEN'T A FRIGGIN CLUE ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE YAPPIN
JUST COZ SOMETHING IS A WORKING MODEL IT ISN'T A FRIGGIN FACT
HOW BASIC IS THHIS? You need bare minimum competence to understand this.
Congrats you refuted your "factual" premise that UCA is a fact, and papa ape is fact too
When the study you youself quoted refutes the notion of UCA and papa ape theory being a fact
Its isn't
[automerge]1679221402[/automerge]
Seems like you were born yesterday
you're desperate to make it a fact when in reality it isn't which is even confirmed and is based on assumptions of homology (similarly =common ancestry) which isn't necessarily TRUE
none of any academic papers claim factuality THEY CLAIM LIKELYHOOD.. which aren't the same and ofc someone with his head in ass wouldn't Get that
Last edited:
Working model with highest probablity of likelihood >>>>>>>> a fictional story with no semblance of evidence for it.
Its like this if the origin of Human from primates is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets loaded and expecting to die, A different origin for humans is like the chances of an average person dying to a stray bullet piercing the heart, which is shot by an invading aliens.
Its like this if the origin of Human from primates is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets loaded and expecting to die, A different origin for humans is like the chances of an average person dying to a stray bullet piercing the heart, which is shot by an invading aliens.
Last edited:
No, I'm saying that the sources you posted were just articles (one of them in a forum, if I recall correctly), not scientific papers. They add nothing of value and certainly couldn't care less whether the people involved are "top 2% scientist" or not; what you posted still seemed like just that, articles with no defined hypothesis, no methodology detailed, no anything.
And I'll be plain simple here: it's so obvious that you're biased because of your theism and desperately want humans to not be "monkeys" that I can't even take you seriously, because again, it's nearly impossible for the eukaryotes of humans being unrelated (as in sharing a common ancestor) to the eukaryotes of chimpanzees or, for the matter, any other primate; and certainly nothing of what you posted would suggest so if not for your absurdly reaching jump from the most basic groups of life to modern, complex, similar at many levels organisms within the same, small taxonomic category. I know you want us to be God's special child, but it isn't happening.
Also, don't ever dare to call my position "propaganda" when you believe the most brainwashing expresion of fairytales.
And I'll be plain simple here: it's so obvious that you're biased because of your theism and desperately want humans to not be "monkeys" that I can't even take you seriously, because again, it's nearly impossible for the eukaryotes of humans being unrelated (as in sharing a common ancestor) to the eukaryotes of chimpanzees or, for the matter, any other primate; and certainly nothing of what you posted would suggest so if not for your absurdly reaching jump from the most basic groups of life to modern, complex, similar at many levels organisms within the same, small taxonomic category. I know you want us to be God's special child, but it isn't happening.
Also, don't ever dare to call my position "propaganda" when you believe the most brainwashing expresion of fairytales.
Last edited:
Ass analogy too.. Now you're copin coz I PROVED THAT YOUR "RESEARCH" SKILLS ARE AS ASS AND YOU DEFINITION FOR WHATS A FACT AND WHATS NOT.. WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITIONS LOL
Comon dude don't embarrass the mass scientific corpus.. Forget that don't insult science itself by using personal feeling and illiteracy as basis of deeming probabilistic and assumptive modles and theories based on MINUTE MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE ( missing links - - > need for homology) as facts
And if you wanna challenge Islamic validity where Islam claims scientific facts inna desert through an illiterate bedouin shepard trust me I'LL HAVE YOU GOBSMACKED AND HUMBLED
what you bring to the table is misinterpretation for bias view..
COPE HARDER
Comon dude don't embarrass the mass scientific corpus.. Forget that don't insult science itself by using personal feeling and illiteracy as basis of deeming probabilistic and assumptive modles and theories based on MINUTE MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE ( missing links - - > need for homology) as facts
And if you wanna challenge Islamic validity where Islam claims scientific facts inna desert through an illiterate bedouin shepard trust me I'LL HAVE YOU GOBSMACKED AND HUMBLED
what you bring to the table is misinterpretation for bias view..
COPE HARDER
Last edited:
Nothing of what you answered to is related to your post. I know science claims likelyhod; what I was pointing out is that nothing of the not-scientific papers the other guy posted supports (see? Support, a word that isn't the same as confirm) primates not sharing a common ancestor. He just made a huge jump over something that isn't even addressed as a solid explanation.
I will not say that humans and other Hominidae sharing the same ancestor is an absolute, undeniable fact because science is always open to discussion. But it's so, so, so, so, so, so (keep adding) unlikely that any evidence will be found supporting humans not being directly related to apes that anybody who indeed wasn't born yesterday will notice in a second the bias you cultists are trying to pass here, which is: "b-but we're special because my imaginary bestie created us personally :(".
"Claiming likelyhood" isn't the same as "this scientifically supported model at genetic, anatomical, etc. levels is equally valid as my fairytale written by people from thousands of years ago that keeps redefining itself because of scientific progress so its cultists won't feel ashamed of believing such impossible crap that is now meant to be read as metaphorical". Unless you want to live based on unsupported faith instead of supported evidence, which would be stup...
...No, wait, you're a believer. Forget it.
I will not say that humans and other Hominidae sharing the same ancestor is an absolute, undeniable fact because science is always open to discussion. But it's so, so, so, so, so, so (keep adding) unlikely that any evidence will be found supporting humans not being directly related to apes that anybody who indeed wasn't born yesterday will notice in a second the bias you cultists are trying to pass here, which is: "b-but we're special because my imaginary bestie created us personally :(".
"Claiming likelyhood" isn't the same as "this scientifically supported model at genetic, anatomical, etc. levels is equally valid as my fairytale written by people from thousands of years ago that keeps redefining itself because of scientific progress so its cultists won't feel ashamed of believing such impossible crap that is now meant to be read as metaphorical". Unless you want to live based on unsupported faith instead of supported evidence, which would be stup...
...No, wait, you're a believer. Forget it.
I did read that, youre just a moron
Why are you quoting something that i already answered above. Theobald himself said it's still an open debate and remains controversial after that study of his. I also answered why this is the case supported by studies done by chinese and japanese biologists. If your reply remain this idiotic and clueless, you can stop quoting me
Except the probability can't really be assessed accurately, so far. Actually, you give me more points. You can crudely predict the distribution of prime numbers with logarithmic integral function or euclid algorithm, you can crudely predict the distribution of pseudoprime numbers as well with a logarithm recently proposed by a high school student (I forgot who). BUT, even then, this problem remains problematic in cryptography because they still add little value to the grand of scheme.
This is even more problematic in this topic because the probability is obtained by giving a strong bias to the UCA model. We dont actually know the TRUE probability of either and which one is more likely to be a better model. Hasegawa explained in his paper why DNA alignment used has a strong bias for the UCA model.
What does this has to do with anything lmao.
Still this deaf?
I said this again and again, im not inferring anything, im just trying to say WHY the current UCA model that is also the basis of the idea that human and chimp share a common ancestry is becoming more and more problematic. Thus, it's reasonable to put doubt to the model and implying it as if it is a facts is disingeneous. For god sake, most of self claimed scientific atheists are retarded, they need to be spoonfed of what the opposition is actually trying to say.
One of them in a forum true, a forum that is a heavy advocate of evolution, which is none other than Scientific American. The other article is also a scholarly based article that is also an advocate of evolution. Two other reference that i cited are scientific papers that says UCA model is problematic and that the Pb value of Human and Chimp is 66% for MCH class II beta chain genes, and he considered it a low value.
And why if its just an article? It's an interview of course they wont explain their studies in detal, are you fcn retarded? Have you not went to a science expo?
Your bold part, i already adressed it that it is indeed currently unlikely, but it's becoming more and more likely as time passes. Youre still in denial, web of life model open that possibility.
The latter bold part, i never claimed it has same probabilities of happening retard.
I said this,
See now?
I said and implied that the current UCA model is indeed the best interpretation today, but ITS becoming more and more problematic. Most evolutionists starts to agree with this as well. I was saying, because of the fluctuating likelihood of all of the models, believing something that is not aligned with the current best model doesn't directly oppose the evolution theory which is what you were saying earlier. Final Verdict, Science and Religion doesn't directly oppose each other
Why are you quoting something that i already answered above. Theobald himself said it's still an open debate and remains controversial after that study of his. I also answered why this is the case supported by studies done by chinese and japanese biologists. If your reply remain this idiotic and clueless, you can stop quoting me
Except the probability can't really be assessed accurately, so far. Actually, you give me more points. You can crudely predict the distribution of prime numbers with logarithmic integral function or euclid algorithm, you can crudely predict the distribution of pseudoprime numbers as well with a logarithm recently proposed by a high school student (I forgot who). BUT, even then, this problem remains problematic in cryptography because they still add little value to the grand of scheme.
This is even more problematic in this topic because the probability is obtained by giving a strong bias to the UCA model. We dont actually know the TRUE probability of either and which one is more likely to be a better model. Hasegawa explained in his paper why DNA alignment used has a strong bias for the UCA model.
What does this has to do with anything lmao.
Still this deaf?
I said this again and again, im not inferring anything, im just trying to say WHY the current UCA model that is also the basis of the idea that human and chimp share a common ancestry is becoming more and more problematic. Thus, it's reasonable to put doubt to the model and implying it as if it is a facts is disingeneous. For god sake, most of self claimed scientific atheists are retarded, they need to be spoonfed of what the opposition is actually trying to say.
One of them in a forum true, a forum that is a heavy advocate of evolution, which is none other than Scientific American. The other article is also a scholarly based article that is also an advocate of evolution. Two other reference that i cited are scientific papers that says UCA model is problematic and that the Pb value of Human and Chimp is 66% for MCH class II beta chain genes, and he considered it a low value.
And why if its just an article? It's an interview of course they wont explain their studies in detal, are you fcn retarded? Have you not went to a science expo?
Your bold part, i already adressed it that it is indeed currently unlikely, but it's becoming more and more likely as time passes. Youre still in denial, web of life model open that possibility.
The latter bold part, i never claimed it has same probabilities of happening retard.
I said this,
See now?
I said and implied that the current UCA model is indeed the best interpretation today, but ITS becoming more and more problematic. Most evolutionists starts to agree with this as well. I was saying, because of the fluctuating likelihood of all of the models, believing something that is not aligned with the current best model doesn't directly oppose the evolution theory which is what you were saying earlier. Final Verdict, Science and Religion doesn't directly oppose each other