---------------------------------------------------
You forgot one other grief.
Posted on 12/25/2014 4:40:58 PM PST by SunkenCiv
LOL!
That’s funny!
Thanks!
You're right that the scientists involved all appear to work for government supported Universities & foundations.
As for their alleged "craziness", well... it's science, and I "get" that you don't like science when it disagrees with your religious faith.
But, it is what it is regardless, still science.
But, it is what it is regardless, still science.
And mostly the lack of thinking skills and lack of understanding of the scientific method. I have presented challenging information to a professor in electrical engineering and his response to me was, “Why would anyone risk their career on something that isn’t true.” That is their touchstone for the truth.
In short, the willingness to believe anything without questioning.
I read the whole article, and the posts here, and understand the confusion.
The article simply points out that in the past there were various ideas proposed for when mankind first adapted the ability to digest alcohol -- was it 80 million years ago, or just 9,000?
So, the whole point of this article is to report on new research which gives us a new date: 10 million years ago.
Wherever did this new date come from?
From comparing the DNA of various primates, to see which ones could digest alcohol, and which couldn't.
Turns out, if I understand it correctly, the split came between human and orangutan lines, around 10 million years ago.
Humans "got it", orangutans don't.
Now, some here have posted this must mean our ancestors got so loaded on fermented fruit, they fell out of their trees, and the rest, as they say, is history.
But clearly, it's the reverse: our ancestors, having come down out of their trees to eat the forbidden fermented fruit, got so loaded they couldn't climb back up, and their orangutan cousins kicked them out of the canopy! ;-) Obviously, it would not be their last expulsion.
---------------------------------------------------
You forgot one other grief.
>>I have presented challenging information to a professor in electrical engineering and his response to me was, “Why would anyone risk their career on something that isn’t true.”<<
Oh, we GOTS TO know! What was this “challenging information?”
(begin bated breath)
Yes, there is a certain randomness to the small number of mutations each individual is born with.
But there is nothing random -- let me repeat, nothing random -- about the actions of natural selection on our various features & capabilities.
Those mutations which improve our survivability get retained and passed on to future generations.
Those which damage us in significant ways soon disappear from our gene pool -- "soon" in evolutionary terms.
Indeed, life is entirely purposeful, and its purpose is to maximize itself, and any mutations which have that effect -- whether "random" or otherwise -- will be selected for passing on to future generations.
So, no, there's nothing Lamarckian about it.
I have pointed out the stochastism of evolution before.
Light to willing blindness it pointless.
Actually, there are at least two good clues: 1) 9,000 years ago, the date of first evidence of humans fermenting grapes, or whatever it was... and 2) about 10 million years ago, the time when primates who could digest alcohol split apart from those who couldn't.
ClearCase_guy: "the fact that humans COULD metabolize ADH4 does not in any way provide evidence that we were consuming alcohol, right?
It has been suggested here that developing the capacity for booze didn't mean our ancestors necessarily fell off their wagons... er, I mean trees.
But evolution is very unforgiving of capabilities which don't get used much -- if we don't use it we lose it, eventually.
So the fact that we still have the ability to digest alcohol must mean we needed that ability, at least sometimes.
Thanks!
You are describing, of course, many posts by our anti-evolution folks.
Some people find it more satisfying to hand-wave and name-call than present actual facts & reasons.
Now, you may well attribute that observation to our fallen natures, or alternatively, to imperfect evolution -- but it seems the practical results are the same: more heat than light from too many posts. ;-)
Let me remind you of some facts.
First, "random mutations" are not "theory", they are observed & confirmed facts.
Every one of us is born with a small number of more-or-less random mutations, and we will pass those mutations on to our children, if any.
It's one method DNA analysts can tell who a baby's father really is.
Second, most of these mutations are totally harmless, because most of our DNA is "non-coding", sometimes referred to as "junk DNA", so mutations there usually cause no noticeable affects.
And, yes, as you posted, those mutations which do have effects are mostly harmful, which often leads to shortened lives & less reproduction -- hence natural selection.
But a small percentage of mutations can improve survivability, and those get passed on to future generations, and accumulating over many generations, can lead to the beginnings of speciation.
Peter Principle: "Darwins finches “evolved” back to earlier beak types as the environment changed they did not evolve through randomness.
LET ME REPEAT, THERE WAS NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION."
In fact, there is quite a lot of "new information" within the 15 different species in five different genera called "Darwin's Finches", which are thought to have evolved over the past two million years.
Indeed, since different species normally don't interbreed, and different genera cannot naturally interbreed, the amount of "new information" carried by each Darwin Finch species is necessarily significant.
It would be equivalent to the DNA differences between, for example, today's humans and chimpanzees.
That's why we all need to make a habit on these threads of correcting posters like you, when you blather such nonsense as above: "LET ME REPEAT, THERE WAS NO NEW GENETIC INFORMATION."
The fact of this matter is that every generation has "new information" -- meaning a small number of DNA mutations, mostly harmless, very rarely helpful.
And that is not a hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's not somebody's "doctrine", it is an observed, confirmed fact.
A person could just say... "today Scientists believe, but we know that some day they'll believe something else." That would add a little bit of clarity to these type of articles.
In fact, evolution-theory has been a key part of natural-sciences for over 150 years -- so nothing there has changed, except of course that we now know orders of magnitude more about it than, for example, Charles Darwin did.
PeterPrinciple: "I have presented challenging information to a professor in electrical engineering and his response to me was, 'Why would anyone risk their career on something that isn’t true.'. "
I take it that you assaulted your poor engineering professor with some carefully packaged anti-evolution arguments -- and you're surprised to see he didn't take your bait?
FRiend, if you want to test out your anti-evo arguments, come here -- that's what Free Republic is for, a public service, no extra charge (but please contribute monthly).
Don't expect your hapless professors to deal with such challenges.
We, of course, are not intimidated by your nonsense, and are happy to set you straight.
But there is nothing in this article that says the camp that believed it was 9,000 years (when man could make alcohol) have changed their mind. My reading of the article was exactly correct, even though a scientist has told me that I can't read and comprehend. There you go... that's science... in science we always read it with an agenda. That's because we get paid largely by tax dollars to come up with something revolutionary.
> A person could just say... “today Scientists believe, but we know that some day they’ll believe something else.” That would add a little bit of clarity to these type of articles.
Science is a method, not a body of knowledge. As knowledge continues to be acquired all the time, what is known obviously changes. That’s the difference between a fixed belief and knowledge, and why it is never necessary to “add a little bit of clarity”.
In fact, the article doesn't even name such people, so it's not clear if the author even knows who they are, or were.
Indeed, I would suggest to you that those other dates -- 9,000 years and 80 million years -- might just as well have been straw-men, set up to make the author's point seem more important.
But if such people actually exist, then there is likely to be a quiet conversation going on amongst them, where they carefully examine the data from this new report, and see if they agree, or find reasons to disagree.
If they find reasons to disagree, then after more careful study or research, we will see their published response, then maybe a full-fledged scientific debate?
But I'm guessing this new data will prove very enlightening to all concerned, and will in some form be incorporated into future scientific studies...
So, bottom line: I suspect that your reading comprehension is just fine, but that you've squandered way too much time reading the wrong stuff, FRiend.
So Earth was created 6,000 years ago
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.