I don't count the website you linked as "made headlines". Did you see the story somewhere else?Windows 10 has a screen that you can choose programs from. I open up news, and click on Top Stories. Right now the top stories are about what is going on in France. That is one of the first times I read something from an ID site. The ID junk is a waste of time. Alright so, "made headlines" means it came across whatever random news feed you happen to have in front of you. That is your typical Mike-centric way of looking at the world. And you were saying we have to "keep up with" these Christians, now you are saying it's a waste of time. Do you see why I think you are a waste of time? Lausten, if you cannot stay on the subject matter, or relate the conversation to the subject matter, then yes just about everything is a waste of time. The points I am trying to bring up are less than sixty days old. Therefore you may not have any experts to tell you how to think yet. Just give it some time.
Your arrogance is getting worse Mike. Your ideas are quite old, it’s just you who started thinking about them recently.
From your response to Write4
Gods have been around for at least 80,000 years. Not the ones that are currently collecting their fees, but the idea of god.
Of course we want to know. The problem is that some people want to make up answers, shortcuts to the truth, then kill people who disagree with them. Killing has also been around for a long time, BTW.
The Bible has extensive information about God’s powers and his minions have extensive material on where he came from. It’s called “apologetics". Or go to YouTube and search “proofs of god".
As for stupidity, I think you are confusing it with ignorance. Were we smarter when we were running around with no clothes and the only thing we made was the arrowhead? Was it smarter to live in caves instead of making buildings? Slavery, a very stupid thing, was commonplace until just recently, but you can’t blame that entirely on religion. The entire idea of “my tribe is the only right tribe" has also been around since before religion.
Your arrogance is getting worse Mike. Your ideas are quite old, it’s just you who started thinking about them recently. From your response to Write4 Gods have been around for at least 80,000 years. Not the ones that are currently collecting their fees, but the idea of god. Of course we want to know. The problem is that some people want to make up answers, shortcuts to the truth, then kill people who disagree with them. Killing has also been around for a long time, BTW. The Bible has extensive information about God’s powers and his minions have extensive material on where he came from. It’s called “apologetics". Or go to YouTube and search “proofs of god". As for stupidity, I think you are confusing it with ignorance. Were we smarter when we were running around with no clothes and the only thing we made was the arrowhead? Was it smarter to live in caves instead of making buildings? Slavery, a very stupid thing, was commonplace until just recently, but you can’t blame that entirely on religion. The entire idea of “my tribe is the only right tribe" has also been around since before religion.Lausten, I have stated that gods have been around for 8,000 years, not 80,000 years. Big different. What I said was that religion, or a form of burial (Red Ochre) has been around for 80,000 years. And there is no signs of any god being used. Religions did not start off with gods. And some older based religions yet today don’t have gods. Lausten, save me the time of the poof of god and you please tell me where god came from, how he was created, what form does he have, how old is he, how he came to be, why he only showed himself in the temples in the past and not today, why he only talks to the Pope and religious leaders, etc.…. And please do it in a logical sense that is understandable and believable. You see that is the point I am trying to make. People, and I mean, most of the world’s population becomes without logic in dealing with gods. The human traits are not built that way for any other subject. Why should religion be any different than politics when it comes to mankind’s thinking? If it cannot be answered by logical thinking, then it has to be in our genes.
Lausten, save me the time of the poof of god and you please tell me where god came from, how he was created, what form does he have, how old is he, how he came to be, why he only showed himself in the temples in the past and not today, why he only talks to the Pope and religious leaders, etc.…. And please do it in a logical sense that is understandable and believable.That;s going to be very difficult seeing as how we're discussing something that does not exist.
No Mike, I’m not going to present a report of the current state of my understanding of what god is. I frequently mention my sources and present my logic, but you don’t respond to it. Instead you keep demanding I give some other response that deals with your crazy ideas. I stopped responding directly to anything you say a long time ago and just started asking for clarifications, then pointing out the lack of coherence and internal consistency of anything you say. I’m just going to keep doing that as long it makes me happy.
There are plenty of good books, YouTubes, articles, etc. on the subjects you bring up. I link you to them often. My regurgitating them is not required to deal with you and your arguments. We don’t need a fully formed alternative explanation of human behavior to counter a theory like yours, made of whole cloth. Your theme can be summed up as; something caused humans to act the way they do regarding religion, genes are something that cause humans to do things, therefore there must be a god gene.
Your arrogance is getting worse Mike. Your ideas are quite old, it’s just you who started thinking about them recently. From your response to Write4 Gods have been around for at least 80,000 years. Not the ones that are currently collecting their fees, but the idea of god. Of course we want to know. The problem is that some people want to make up answers, shortcuts to the truth, then kill people who disagree with them. Killing has also been around for a long time, BTW. The Bible has extensive information about God’s powers and his minions have extensive material on where he came from. It’s called “apologetics". Or go to YouTube and search “proofs of god". As for stupidity, I think you are confusing it with ignorance. Were we smarter when we were running around with no clothes and the only thing we made was the arrowhead? Was it smarter to live in caves instead of making buildings? Slavery, a very stupid thing, was commonplace until just recently, but you can’t blame that entirely on religion. The entire idea of “my tribe is the only right tribe" has also been around since before religion.Lausten, I have stated that gods have been around for 8,000 years, not 80,000 years. Big different. What I said was that religion, or a form of burial (Red Ochre) has been around for 80,000 years. And there is no signs of any god being used. Religions did not start off with gods. And some older based religions yet today don’t have gods. Lausten, save me the time of the poof of god and you please tell me where god came from, how he was created, what form does he have, how old is he, how he came to be, why he only showed himself in the temples in the past and not today, why he only talks to the Pope and religious leaders, etc.…. And please do it in a logical sense that is understandable and believable. You see that is the point I am trying to make. People, and I mean, most of the world’s population becomes without logic in dealing with gods. The human traits are not built that way for any other subject. Why should religion be any different than politics when it comes to mankind’s thinking? If it cannot be answered by logical thinking, then it has to be in our genes. I might be misunderstanding this, which is pretty easy to do with you. By challenging me to give a proof of god, are you trying to make a point that it can't be done, that it is illogical? I of course agree with that, so I don't know why you would need such a convoluted way to say that. Then you make the point humans "are not built that way for any other subject". Umm, sure they are. Have you been watching the debates lately? Lots of non-logical thinking there, and not just the religious stuff.
Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin’s DNA differed from the other’s at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.
Normally people carry two copies of every gene, one inherited from each parent. “There are, however, regions in the genome that deviate from that two-copy rule, and that’s where you have copy number variants,” Bruder explains. These regions can carry anywhere from zero to over 14 copies of a gene.
Scientists have long used twins to study the roles of nature and nurture in human genetics and how each affects disease, behavior, and conditions, such as obesity. But Bruder’s findings suggest a new way to study the genetic and environmental roots of disease.
For example, one twin in Bruder’s study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.
Bruder therefore believes that the differences in identical twins can be used to identify specific genetic regions that coincide with specific diseases. Next, he plans to examine blood samples from twin pairs in which only one suffers from asthma or psoriasis to see whether he can find gene copy number changes that relate to either of these illnesses.
More interesting material in this article
Then you make the point humans "are not built that way for any other subject". Umm, sure they are. Have you been watching the debates lately? Lots of non-logical thinking there, and not just the religious stuff.Yes, a lot of non-logical thinking in the debates. That’s the point, the debates are following the human traits. Religion does not. Have you been following the UV study fallout? Let me bring you up to date. Today they came out with a new theory by an international team from major universities. Basically it says the white skin people came from a group that migrated out of Africa 45K ago. Lived in isolation from the rest of the people in Europe and Asia until 5K years ago. While in this isolation they breed with a fourth human group. This fourth human branch is yet to be found. Then they migrated to Europe. Now, they never came out and said it. But we are supposed to assume that this ghost human group that they breed with must have made their skin white. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622
Then you make the point humans "are not built that way for any other subject". Umm, sure they are. Have you been watching the debates lately? Lots of non-logical thinking there, and not just the religious stuff.Yes, a lot of non-logical thinking in the debates. That’s the point, the debates are following the human traits. Religion does not. Have you been following the UV study fallout? Let me bring you up to date. Today they came out with a new theory by an international team from major universities. Basically it says the white skin people came from a group that migrated out of Africa 45K ago. Lived in isolation from the rest of the people in Europe and Asia until 5K years ago. While in this isolation they breed with a fourth human group. This fourth human branch is yet to be found. Then they migrated to Europe. Now, they never came out and said it. But we are supposed to assume that this ghost human group that they breed with must have made their skin white. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/fourth-strand-european-ancestry-originated-hunter-gatherers-isolated-020622 This is from the "about" page of the site you linked, "Our goal is to highlight the very latest archaeological findings, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe." In other words, they are speculating wildly, just like you. That's fine, do it all you want, but be honest that it is what you are doing. It would almost be interesting if you didn't change what you were saying every other post. In the previous one you said humans "become illogical when it comes to gods", then I pointed out non-logical thinking occurs all the time, you said, "debates are following the human traits. Religion does not." What traits is religion following or not then?
This is from the "about" page of the site you linked, "Our goal is to highlight the very latest archaeological findings, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe." In other words, they are speculating wildly, just like you. That's fine, do it all you want, but be honest that it is what you are doing.That’s true. But the scientist didn’t publish in the Ancient Origins. Ancient Origins just ran the story. Just like - University of Cambridge, Nature World Report, University of Wisconsin‑Madison, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science, Los Angeles Times, you get the point. It will take a couple of weeks to reach all the newspapers because it is only in the second day out. I think you are nit-picking. Step back and ask yourself, is there a fire or not. The UV study left the door open as to where the white skinned people came from. It hasn’t taken long and the first papers are out by the scholars. This whole concept is based upon a ghost branch of humans. I’ll still put my money on domestication being the ghost genes they are finding. One of the main problems off hand that I see, other than the missing (ghost) fourth human branch is, this is the same area that the horse was domesticated at. And the domesticated horses were able to move to all the other areas. So the place could not have been that isolated. Did you notice that the map of origin for the ghost study is different than the map for the UV study?
It would almost be interesting if you didn't change what you were saying every other post. In the previous one you said humans "become illogical when it comes to gods", then I pointed out non-logical thinking occurs all the time, you said, "debates are following the human traits. Religion does not." What traits is religion following or not then?Political debates brings up details and human thinking. You can sit down for coffee and debate political issues. Not so true with religion. You don't see the same reactions. Has this happen to you. The subject of religion comes up and communication becomes slower like there is more thought going into the subject. The volume of the person changes. Sometimes even a person’s posture changes.
Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants. Normally people carry two copies of every gene, one inherited from each parent. "There are, however, regions in the genome that deviate from that two-copy rule, and that's where you have copy number variants," Bruder explains. These regions can carry anywhere from zero to over 14 copies of a gene. Scientists have long used twins to study the roles of nature and nurture in human genetics and how each affects disease, behavior, and conditions, such as obesity. But Bruder's findings suggest a new way to study the genetic and environmental roots of disease. For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not. Bruder therefore believes that the differences in identical twins can be used to identify specific genetic regions that coincide with specific diseases. Next, he plans to examine blood samples from twin pairs in which only one suffers from asthma or psoriasis to see whether he can find gene copy number changes that relate to either of these illnesses. More interesting material in this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/Do you know if we have reached a point in medical research that if we wanted to give birth to set of identical twins that it could be done with the help of the medical scientists? I know they have cloned sheep. And with the cloning the genetics should be copies or identical.
Okay, the study is valid, but there is no “ghost branch", it’s just a branch. There is nothing in the article about UV or skin color and I doubt there is anything in the study about it. This study is not trying to find answers to the questions you are making up. Neither is it about domestication. You have a real problem connecting the dots with data. For example your problem with the horses moving to other areas, that happened later. Many of your questions could be answered by simply looking at the 10s of thousands of years separating the various facts that you put together.
As for debate, no I don’t see the differences you are talking about. I don’t see people calmly discussing their choices for president over coffee. So, I guess you are backtracking on your statement yesterday that there is “a lot of non-logical thinking in the debates."
Again, the Mike-centric world is needed to make the Mike case, and whatever observation suits him, he uses.
BTW, if you want me to stop bothering you, start your own thread. You hijacked this one from the first post you made in it.
Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants. Normally people carry two copies of every gene, one inherited from each parent. "There are, however, regions in the genome that deviate from that two-copy rule, and that's where you have copy number variants," Bruder explains. These regions can carry anywhere from zero to over 14 copies of a gene. Scientists have long used twins to study the roles of nature and nurture in human genetics and how each affects disease, behavior, and conditions, such as obesity. But Bruder's findings suggest a new way to study the genetic and environmental roots of disease. For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not. Bruder therefore believes that the differences in identical twins can be used to identify specific genetic regions that coincide with specific diseases. Next, he plans to examine blood samples from twin pairs in which only one suffers from asthma or psoriasis to see whether he can find gene copy number changes that relate to either of these illnesses. More interesting material in this article http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/Do you know if we have reached a point in medical research that if we wanted to give birth to set of identical twins that it could be done with the help of the medical scientists? I know they have cloned sheep. And with the cloning the genetics should be copies or identical. It should be possible to create identical twins in the lab, though I haven't heard of it happening. It would seem to be possible with today's technology. Although identical twins are clones of each other, creating human clones the way Dolly the sheep was cloned by joining genetic material, would be a much more complicated endeavor. It may be possible one day. Who knows? Lois
Okay, the study is valid, but there is no “ghost branch", it’s just a branch. There is nothing in the article about UV or skin color and I doubt there is anything in the study about it. This study is not trying to find answers to the questions you are making up. Neither is it about domestication. You have a real problem connecting the dots with data. For example your problem with the horses moving to other areas, that happened later. Many of your questions could be answered by simply looking at the 10s of thousands of years separating the various facts that you put together. As for debate, no I don’t see the differences you are talking about. I don’t see people calmly discussing their choices for president over coffee. So, I guess you are backtracking on your statement yesterday that there is “a lot of non-logical thinking in the debates." Again, the Mike-centric world is needed to make the Mike case, and whatever observation suits him, he uses. BTW, if you want me to stop bothering you, start your own thread. You hijacked this one from the first post you made in it.Lausten, I call the branch “ghost" because nothing has been seen or found other than some genes. But the genes could have originated by other means. As far as skin color, Caucasus Mountains contain Europe’s highest mountains. Or white mountains. The term “Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners. The whole meat of the article is that the Caucasus bones contain the white genes. There are three genes that make the skin white. The article states that a group of people came from Africa 45K ago. Lived in isolation for 40K years. While in isolation they breed with a fourth human race 8K ago and picked up the genes. Then 3K years latter migrated to Europe. The question trying to be answered here is where did the white people come from? The UV study proved they did not evolve as previously understood. I agree with you. If you are not following the subject, it is hard to read between the lines, “along with the Caucasus hunter-gatherer strand of ancestral DNA – now present in almost all populations from the European continent." And “India is a complete mix of Asian and European genetic components. The Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry is the best match we’ve found for the European genetic component found right across modern Indian populations," Lausten, I did not hi-jack this post. I am making a view point about how much Americans really knows about religion by stating that Americans and all religion may be influenced by genes. These genes cause Americans to give up the human traits to know everything when it comes to religion.
“These genes cause Americans to give up the human traits to know everything when it comes to religion."
That is possibly the most nonsensical thing you’ve ever said. And that’s quite an accomplishment for you.
“The question trying to be answered here is where did the white people come from?"
That is a question only you asked and you’ve been arguing with yourself about it ever since then.
Regarding genes and religion – religiosity is quite heritable: http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1268.pdf
As a life long atheist, I got 80% on that test. A test which is completely useless, IMO, in judging how much anyone knows about religion.
EDIT: What’s with the forum thinking my post was spam any way? I tried to post more than above.
“These genes cause Americans to give up the human traits to know everything when it comes to religion." That is possibly the most nonsensical thing you've ever said. And that's quite an accomplishment for you.Lausten, Let me try again to explain. In politics you can change a person’s view or feeling about a subject of person. In religion you can’t. Read the paper mid atlantic just posted a link to. You should be able to get the idea from that paper.
“The question trying to be answered here is where did the white people come from?" That is a question only you asked and you've been arguing with yourself about it ever since then.I told you at the beginning of the post that this subject is cutting edge. I spent just about an hour on the phone with a top genetic scientist the other day. These guys are the best. They have no trouble understanding my point of view and questions. A complete 180 from your thinking. Point being, will this site ever get the participation to have quality debates if it consists of degrading the messenger. Here we have a great opportunity with two new scientific findings. The first is that white skin people have only been around for 8K years. And second that white skin people did not evolve from UV evolution. A total rewriting of the history books needs to be done. This gives us an opportunity to watch the scientists in action as they try and patch up this hole in history. They are trying to use the archaeological findings and reports of the past but are putting a lot of disclaimers into the reports for fear the genetic finds will be different. All I have done with this post of how much do Americans really know about religion is point out that that maybe the oldest pre-history Genesis stories were the first real scientific books of knowledge. I am an American, and have been trying to figure out religion. And items like mid atlantic’s post is a great help. The gene affects explains a lot about the way people react with religion.
But you can change people’s minds about religion, it happens all the time.
Did you read that entire paper? Did you understand it? Is it peer reviewed? Is there consensus on these ideas? I never said there are no genetic influences on religiosity, but you said “they" will find the religion gene soon. That’s a claim with very little evidence. Not to mention your other claims about UV or whatever it is you mean by “domestication".
I don’t care how long you talked to a genetic scientist. You don’t name the guy, and you don’t name any of his or her research and there is no way for me to know if you understood one word he said. You constantly struggle with simple concepts. This is not “degrading the messenger" this is demonstrable fact.
But you can change people’s minds about religion, it happens all the time.I’m sure it does. I personally have never seen it happen. There have been a couple posters come to this site saying they had given up on religion, that’s the most I know of.
Did you read that entire paper? Did you understand it? Is it peer reviewed? Is there consensus on these ideas? I never said there are no genetic influences on religiosity, but you said “they" will find the religion gene soon. That’s a claim with very little evidence. Not to mention your other claims about UV or whatever it is you mean by “domestication".I don’t even know if anyone is looking for the religious gene. So I don’t think I said they would find it as in someone was looking for it. Lausten, I think you know what UV is. We have went over that UV theory sometime back. What is mean by domestication is that plants and animals that have been changed for the use of humans have been domesticated. We know that over 90% of the protein we consume from items that were domesticated in India. But who domesticated them, we don’t know. We don’t even know which branch of the Homos did the domestication. We have no proof that it was the sapiens at this time.
I don’t care how long you talked to a genetic scientist. You don’t name the guy, and you don’t name any of his or her research and there is no way for me to know if you understood one word he said. You constantly struggle with simple concepts. This is not “degrading the messenger" this is demonstrable fact.I don’t want you to care about what genetic scientist I talk to. You missed the point entirely. The point was this is a very interesting subject and a history changer. You are trying to make it about me. Either you are interested in the subject matter or not.