Revolution!

[Massive spl]

cient DNA has been retrieved and analyzed from Egyptian mummies and from animals such as quaggas, mammoths, moas and marsupial wolves. The first analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from Neanderthals was published in 1997.
The specimen was taken from the first Neanderthal fossil discovered, from Feldhofer Cave, in the Neander Valley, Germany. A small sample of bone was ground up to extract mtDNA.

The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome.

A second mtDNA sequence, announced in 2000, was derived from a 29,000 year old Neanderthal found in Mezmaiskaya Cave, Russia (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000). Although the Mezmaiskaya Cave sequence was slightly different than the Feldhofer Neanderthal, the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from those of modern humans. These results confirmed the earlier findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have contributed to the modern human genome. As with the previous study of Neanderthal mtDNA, results were consistent with separation between the Neanderthal and modern human gene pools or with very low amounts of gene flow between the two groups.

Further mtDNA sequences confirme

quoted fro. the Smithsonian website.

Heard it on the Internet it must be true... Lmao this guy ^

 

[gckless 5,000+ posts]

For GOD so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, and whosoever beleiveth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man gets to the Father except through Me.

Greater gift have no man, but to lay down his life for his brother.

Love yee one another, as I myself have loved you.

That's it in a nutshell.

That's what in a nutshell?

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

funny thing us not one of you in any type of discussion provide any factual evidence and I always do, yet I'm wrong.

maybe if you provided some factual evidence I could compare I'd take anything yall say seriously. I really just like to get you all up tite and have a laugh fest with it.

soul drop is the only one won't remotely questioned anything.

I've searched high and low and I still cannot find any data that carbon dating is accurate past about 50 years..

next so I can have a blast!

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

Heard it on the Internet it must be true... Lmao this guy ^

your not serious right? this is secinitific studies from the most renowned natural history museum and scientist in the USA.

look up the Smithsonian..

your mom must be proud

 

[gckless 5,000+ posts]

funny thing us not one of you in any type of discussion provide any factual evidence and I always do, yet I'm wrong.maybe if you provided some factual evidence I could compare I'd take anything yall say seriously. I really just like to get you all up tite and have a laugh fest with it.

soul drop is the only one won't remotely questioned anything.

I've searched high and low and I still cannot find any data that carbon dating is accurate past about 50 years..

next so I can have a blast!

I think you misinterpreted some things. It may not be accurate within +/- 50 years or so, but it's well accurate past 50 years ago, within that +/- 50 years. It also depends on the testing methods. Wikipedia explains it decently.

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

That's what in a nutshell?

Its one thing to Clown. but when it comes to religion I have respect for everyone's views. even if they are crazy as long as they aren't volient or harmful I don't judge. what I don't like is someone judging someone saying religion is stupid etc.

I don't mock anyone for not believing anything. that's fine by me. but respect others as they respect you.

it's apparent you don't read or know his religion. simply ignore it. not that hard.

except for massive. he's a idoit.. **** his life ; ). lol

no matter how dumb I think you are I'll still respect you. even massive that poor soul

 

[Massive spl]

your not serious right? this is secinitific studies from the most renowned natural history museum and scientist in the USA.look up the Smithsonian..

your mom must be proud

My mother is not proud. She never once told me she was proud of me. I do not like my mother at all //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

 

[macsdad 10+ year member]

That's what in a nutshell?

This is how it's explained in the Word. I don't judge anybody, because I am far from perfect.

 

[gckless 5,000+ posts]

Its one thing to Clown. but when it comes to religion I have respect for everyone's views. even if they are crazy as long as they aren't volient or harmful I don't judge. what I don't like is someone judging someone saying religion is stupid etc.I don't mock anyone for not believing anything. that's fine by me. but respect others as they respect you.

it's apparent you don't read or know his religion. simply ignore it. not that hard.

except for massive. he's a idoit.. **** his life ; ). lol

no matter how dumb I think you are I'll still respect you. even massive that poor soul

I think you're misusing valiant here. Might be worth a googling, because that's a key attribute if you're religious.

And he's pushing his views out here. So now I'm not allowed to voice mine? Don't think so. Christians love doing that. Spew all this bullshit but then when one word against it or to simply be quiet is said everyone is all up in arms. And anyway, I was simply asking him what he's referring to. Because what he said doesn't really pertain to evolution or the discussion at hand.

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

I think you misinterpreted some things. It may not be accurate within +/- 50 years or so, but it's well accurate past 50 years ago, within that +/- 50 years. It also depends on the testing methods. Wikipedia explains it decently.

I reference wiki often. fir the mist part it is accurate.. a few months ago I watch a program on a newly discovered dinosaur. I was shocked when the analyzed the dna. this program made me initially ponder the stuff I been thought as a kid.

I look into it and came to the conclusion there was no way on earth they could accurately date these anaminaos/mammals.

I'm going to cute you some real websites on carbon dating how it works and let you decide.

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

I think you're misusing valiant here. Might be worth a googling, because that's a key attribute if you're religious.
And he's pushing his views out here. So now I'm not allowed to voice mine? Don't think so. Christians love doing that. Spew all this bullshit but then when one word against it or to simply be quiet is said everyone is all up in arms. And anyway, I was simply asking him what he's referring to. Because what he said doesn't really pertain to evolution or the discussion at hand.

You have the right to. just be respectful when doing so.

he's not forcing you to read it b. he's just saying he got love for ya a d hopefully you will listen with an open mind. if you don't care to see it. don't click the link!

love peace and chicken grease

 

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

 

BTW it was volient. this phones crazy..

 

[els1989]

i learned a long time ago you can't force people to do anyting. god has his way of showing poeple the truth.

That's hilarious because throughout the entire span of Christianity it's has revolved around forcing people to believe in it through murder and ****. And if you disagreed with the church you would meet an early death...

Here's one for you. Watch religulous the movie/ documentary. Or just simply provide proof anything in your science fiction novel of manipulation is factual i.e. The bible

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Papermaker85 5,000+ posts]

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American

this is a real idle source. seriously read if you want to know otherwise don't try to argue

 

[els1989]

For GOD so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, and whosoever beleiveth in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man gets to the Father except through Me.

Greater gift have no man, but to lay down his life for his brother.

Love yee one another, as I myself have loved you.

That's it in a nutshell.

Those are nothing more than words of manipulation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gckless 5,000+ posts]

I reference wiki often. fir the mist part it is active. a few months ago I watch a program on a newly discovered dinosaur. I was shocked when the analyzed the dna. this program made me initially ponder the stuff I been thought as a kid.I look into it and came to the conclusion there was no way on earth they could accurately date these anaminaos/mammals.

I'm going to cute you some real websites on carbon dating how it works and let you decide.

Ohhh man now you know how I feel about religion! Let's take Noah's Ark for example, probably the most unbelievable thing. Since you love quoting things, from Wiki:

"According to Genesis, God gave Noah instructions for building the ark. Seven days before the deluge, God told Noah to enter the ark with his household and the animals. The story goes on to describe the ark being afloat throughout the flood and subsequent receding of the waters before it came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat. The story is repeated, with variations, in the Quran, where the ark appears as Safina Nuh (Arabic: سفينة نوح‎ "Noah's boat"). The Genesis flood narrative is similar to numerous other flood myths from a variety of cultures. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.[3] Searches for Noah's Ark have been made from at least the time of Eusebius (c.275–339 CE) to the present day. There is no scientific evidence for a global flood, and despite many expeditions, no evidence of the ark has been found"

Looking for almost 2000 years, found nothing. But let's think logically. This dude went around, gathered a male and a female of every species, and somehow caged them, fed them, built this enormous boat (out of wood that came from where??), ensured all those animals were actually a breeding pair, survived this whole flood ordeal through 40 days without a single animal or person dying, and then populated the earth? Like, what??????? I mean really, if I told you that some dude did that even with today's technology, would you believe that? Nope. So what's the difference here?