DNA Evidence for the Bible

[amariselle]

If it's not evidenced then it's not science.

Exactly my point.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, there are many first hand eyewitness accounts from survivors of the sinking.

Doesn't change the fact that they used scientific evidence and computer models to fill in what the survivors didn't see. That's what we have science for, to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, things we can't directly observe.

The issue with the fossil record is not even close to what we're dealing with regarding the Titanic. We do not have eyewitness accounts from people who were there and witnessed such evolution over time, and we do not have a complete or even nearly complete fossil record.

We do have the fossils and DNA from living species, observations that allow us to reconstruct past events. That's what science does. Science uses observations to tell us more about nature.

As already mentioned, we have the actual wreckage to look at in regards to the Titanic.

We have the actual species and genomes produced by evolution and common ancestry, as well as the different morphological variations produced by evolution in the past.

Comparing computer animation of the fossil record to computer animation of the sinking of the Titanic is highly problematic. Scientists know FAR less about the fossil record than they do about the Titanic, it's not even close.

We do have the fossils, however. We do have transitional fossils.

The gaps in the fossil record are quite substantial,

Doesn't change the fact that we have transitional fossils between which the gaps appear, and we observe the nested hierarchy that evolution predicts we should see in the fossil record.

 

[amariselle]

Doesn't change the fact that they used scientific evidence and computer models to fill in what the survivors didn't see. That's what we have science for, to fill in the gaps of our knowledge, things we can't directly observe.

You chose to compare the computer models of the fossil record to the computer models of the Titanic's sinking. It was a poor comparison, I'm just pointing out that the two have nothing in common, other than that computers were used at some point.

What those computers were used for however, and the extent to which they were used, is an entirely different issue.

The gaps in the fossil record are extreme, the gaps in the sinking of the Titanic are not.

So, to what extreme should we be using computer models to fill in holes in scientific evidence? The point is that we have only scarce and fragmentary evidence for the fossil record, and therefore scientists must make substantial allowances for this.

We do have the fossils and DNA from living species, observations that allow us to reconstruct past events. That's what science does. Science uses observations to tell us more about nature.

The problem is, science lacks a lot of such observations. For instance, scientists have never observed one species becoming another species. Even attempts to produce this evolution in the laboratory have failed. There is simply no evidence that one species can or does change into another completely different species.

We have the actual species and genomes produced by evolution and common ancestry, as well as the different morphological variations produced by evolution in the past.

Smaller changes and variations within a species are one thing, claiming human beings were once a completely different species is another. Once again, there is no fossil evidence to support this. Hence the computer models.

We do have the fossils, however. We do have transitional fossils.

We have fossils that clearly demonstrate our "common ape-like ancestor" transitioning/evolving through time? Really? Care to provide credible sources that demonstrate this?

Doesn't change the fact that we have transitional fossils between which the gaps appear, and we observe the nested hierarchy that evolution predicts we should see in the fossil record.

Again, please provide credible sources that demonstrate this. Contrary to what you're saying, scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record is "scarce" and "fragmentary" at best.

 

[Loudmouth]

You chose to compare the computer models of the fossil record to the computer models of the Titanic's sinking. It was a poor comparison, I'm just pointing out that the two have nothing in common, other than that computers were used at some point.

They do have something in common. Computer models were used to determine what happened to the Titanic where we had no eyewitness accounts.

The gaps in the fossil record are extreme, the gaps in the sinking of the Titanic are not.

We have transitional fossils, and EVERY fossil we have fits the predictions of the theory of evolution.

So, to what extreme should we be using computer models to fill in holes in scientific evidence? The point is that we have only scarce and fragmentary evidence for the fossil record, and therefore scientists must make substantial allowances for this.

Not so for the hominid fossil record, which is one of the most complete fossil records we have.

The problem is, science lacks a lot of such observations. For instance, scientists have never observed one species becoming another species.

Scientists have observed that very thing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Even if we had never observed a single speciation event, we have more than enough genetic evidence present in modern species to conclude that they happened in the past.

Even attempts to produce this evolution in the laboratory have failed.

Evidence?

There is simply no evidence that one species can or does change into another completely different species.

29+ pieces of evidence which prove otherwise:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Smaller changes and variations within a species are one thing, claiming human beings were once a completely different species is another. Once again, there is no fossil evidence to support this. Hence the computer models.

There is fossil evidence.

We have fossils that clearly demonstrate our "common ape-like ancestor" transitioning/evolving through time? Really? Care to provide credible sources that demonstrate this?

See picture above

Contrary to what you're saying, scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record is "scarce" and "fragmentary" at best.

Se picture above

 

[joshua 1 9]

How many great-great grandmothers do you have?

The female line of the family goes back to Plantagenet. We can trace our family genealogy back to 800 ad. Before that all the written records were destroyed so we would have to look at the DNA. I believe at one point in time they will have the DNA family tree for the entire human race. Pedigrees or family trees were very important in Europe. Even in this country both of my grandmothers were daughters of the revolution and they were very proud of that. On my fathers side we trace our genealogy back to the mayflower compact.

 

[joshua 1 9]

we do not have a complete or even nearly complete fossil record.

When we get to heaven we will be able to see ever species that has ever lived.

 

[Armoured]

Again click on the links in the first post. I can not explain anything any better then that web site explains this.

I clicked the link. I can't see where it says what yoou say it says. How about a direct quote?

 

[Armoured]

That's not what the link I provided from the Smithsonian says at all.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

*sigh*

 

[joshua 1 9]

I clicked the link. I can't see where it says what yoou say it says. How about a direct quote?

The question is: "Can recent genetic research give some indication of the existence of the historical Abraham?" The answer to that question is YES and the article does just that. The most pure DNA has to do with the Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype. In the movie "A Stranger Among Us". the young Rabbi explains all of this to the young female detective. She wonders why they keep their marriages so genetically pure.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936742.html

 

[Armoured]

The question is: "Can recent genetic research give some indication of the existence of the historical Abraham?" The answer to that question is YES and the article does just that. The most pure DNA has to do with the Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype. In the movie "A Stranger Among Us". the young Rabbi explains all of this to the young female detective. She wonders why they keep their marriages so genetically pure.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48936742.html

Still not seeing it. How does modern DNa analysis point to tye existence of any Biblical figure?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Still not seeing it. How does modern DNa analysis point to tye existence of any Biblical figure?

Abraham has two sons. Isaac with Sarah his wife and Ishmael, born to Abraham and his wife's servant Hagar. Isaac was the child of promise & Ishmael represents the flesh. Today Ishmael represents the Islam people and the law of God. Isaac represents the Children of promise and the Grace of God. The DNA evidence shows that all of what the Bible says is true. There is no difference between the Y Chromosome of the Hebrew people and the Islam people in the Middle East. We are told that Ishmael will be the father of twelve rulers or nations and that is exactly what we find today in the Middle East or the Arab Land Plate. There is a LOT to this story and I can not go into all of it right now.

"Jewish populations of European maternal linage show a predominant amount of shared Middle Eastern ancestry. According to Behar and colleagues (2010), this is "consistent with the historical formulation theories the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World" wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_Near_East

 

[bhsmte]

YOU need to quit trying to drift off the subject of the thread. Read the first post, click on the links and say on the subject.

Discussing lack of supporting claims is relevant.

 

[Armoured]

Abraham has two sons. Isaac with Sarah his wife and Ishmael, born to Abraham and his wife's servant Hagar. Isaac was the child of promise & Ishmael represents the flesh. Today Ishmael represents the Islam people and the law of God. Isaac represents the Children of promise and the Grace of God. The DNA evidence shows that all of what the Bible says is true. There is no difference between the Y Chromosome of the Hebrew people and the Islam people in the Middle East. We are told that Ishmael will be the father of twelve rulers or nations and that is exactly what we find today in the Middle East or the Arab Land Plate. There is a LOT to this story and I can not go into all of it right now.

"Jewish populations of European maternal linage show a predominant amount of shared Middle Eastern ancestry. According to Behar and colleagues (2010), this is "consistent with the historical formulation theories the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelites of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World" wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_Near_East

Still not seeing the link between the Bible and genetic evidence, but whatever.

 

[Armoured]

Discussing lack of supporting claims is relevant.

Would be nice, wouldn't it?

 

[Veera Chase]

The female line of the family goes back to Plantagenet.

It goes back much further than that.......... we both go back to the first cell, how do I know that? because we are both here.

We both have ancestors who walked upright, swung through the trees, crawled along the ground and swan in the sea, everyone of us alive today is related somewhere down the line, it's amazing to think that not one of the males in our lines died before making a female pregnant, how many generations was that?

It has been estimated that there have been 125,000 generations since the emergence of the first Homo species, and 7,500 generations of humans since the emergence of Homo sapiens.
Civilization started only 500 or so generations ago. The number of people who have ever lived is approximately 85 billion.

 

[Loudmouth]

The female line of the family goes back to Plantagenet. We can trace our family genealogy back to 800 ad. Before that all the written records were destroyed so we would have to look at the DNA. I believe at one point in time they will have the DNA family tree for the entire human race. Pedigrees or family trees were very important in Europe. Even in this country both of my grandmothers were daughters of the revolution and they were very proud of that. On my fathers side we trace our genealogy back to the mayflower compact.

I notice that you didn't answer my question.

How many great-great grandmothers do you have?

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is: "Can recent genetic research give some indication of the existence of the historical Abraham?" The answer to that question is YES and the article does just that. The most pure DNA has to do with the Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype. In the movie "A Stranger Among Us". the young Rabbi explains all of this to the young female detective. She wonders why they keep their marriages so genetically pure.

Where is the evidence that this Y chromosome haplotype came from Abraham?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Discussing lack of supporting claims is relevant.

What we are discussing is your refusal to open your eyes and look at the evidence. I do not know what you are hiding but the truth really seems to scare you.

 

[Loudmouth]

What we are discussing is your refusal to open your eyes and look at the evidence.

What evidence?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where is the evidence that this Y chromosome haplotype came from Abraham?

You are suppose to know this stuff. Before we had DNA evidence we had what they call genealogies. Also they refer to this as pedigrees although the modern use of the word pedigree is more common with animals. In Paul's letter to Titus he gives him some advise: "avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law" So even before the DNA evidence for the genealogies surfaced there were endless disputes and debates about the genealogies. This was almost 2,000 years ago. Now the "endless disputes and debates about the genealogies" seem to be going on. Atheists insist that I give them evidence only their motive is 100% to argue with me and try to disprove the evidence no matter how factual or true that evidence is. Atheists are traitors to science, they know the truth yet they still want to hide and conceal the truth. That is what a atheist do. And that is fine if that is what they want to do. But for me it is a waste of time and there are plenty of things I can be doing that are a lot more productive and worthwhile then to play games with people who have the opposite objective then I have. Most people feel the reason they hide the truth is that they do not want people to find them out. They are trying to hide something and they want to keep it hidden.