millions of years?

A message encoded in DNA would be proof of a creator.but to me dna is word its simply brilliant we are made of word.
(so i guess you believe in bible code)Eh, I could do better. It's a product of "unintellident design".just not the case Crash i think the fact that we are typing to each other from across the planet is because we are an intelligent design'As for Jesus's saying, I've never seen anyone rise from the dead'neither have i , (not qouted)' blessed is he who believes even though he has not seen.'
am i right in saying you have never known faith (at least faith in God i mean) because when you do have it and you test it ,for me at least he responds 100%

got to go Crash will answer any come backs later on .good talkin to ya

Well, technically we're made of proteins, but that's just a quibble. Uh, no. You know, if you take an infinitely long string of random characters, you can know for sure that any finite message can be found in that string. Any message you choose, it's there in that infinite string.So, in a lengthy book like the bible, I'd be more surprised if there weren't so-called "Bible codes" - strings of characters that were coincidentally meaningful to us. Hey, the human body is great, don't get me wrong. But in terms of design it's nowhere near as good as it could be, and if the bible is any indication, never has been. Hrm, consider for a moment - if you were writing a book to start a religion, and you were losing converts because the miracles you said would happen aren't, wouldn't it be a great way to solve that problem to put some language in about how it's better to believe the book without proof?Honestly the fact that the bible seems to predict it's own unlikelyhood is not, to my mind, miraculous, but rather evidence of shrewd minds behind its redaction. No, you're actually wrong - I was a very faithful Christian for many years in my youth. I totally believed in god, 100%. And when I put god to the test, I got nothing. When I trusted in god, I was totally let down, over and over again. Yeah, likewise.

quote:

---

why millions of years,evolution supposes millions of years.

---

If, after all your time here, you still think science bases its numbers on mere supposition, I'm not convinced you're really trying to learn.

quote:

---

what about extinction,i think a lot of animals have been extinct in my lifetime.Anyone remember the black death? surely over millions of years when there were far less humans time would become the enemy,we would not have the time to evolve ?

---

It's funny that you mention the Black Death, because there is a gene that seems to provide resistance to it. This gene appears to have become common several hundred years ago among the people of Europe. Any guesses why?The black death and ccr5-delta 32...was a great article and the first I found when I searched "black death resistance" on Google. There are plenty of others if you'd like to confirm it.Interestingly, it seems that this same gene confers some level of resistance to HIV, which _may_ explain why AIDS is not trashing Europe as badly as Africa.

'If, after all your time here, you still think science bases its numbers on mere supposition'PLEASE do not put words in my mouth!

Sorry but he didn't put words in your mouth.In your OP you said::'evolution supposes millions of years'It is not a supposition, it is an age estimate based upon
multiple lines of evidence.

You're kind of looking at it all backwards....like humans were supposed to exist ... we just do because
we DID survive as a species ... there's nothing magical
about that (in a supernatural sense).Just the way it went.

A link providing some support for the possible near-extinction og homo sapiens about 70,000 years ago. Numbers differ somewhat from previous posting; but the linked article carries some discussion of how the results were sachieved, which may be interesting.Wednesday, June 11, 2003 .Brush with extinctionNew research suggests the human race was nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, when a crisis reduced the population to about 2,000 people. The theory has reinvigorated the debate on whether humans really did come 'Out of Africa', or whether the species evolved in little pockets around the globe.Scientists engaged in the study of human origins have advanced a new theory that suggests that we very nearly failed to evolve to where we are today.American and Russian researchers have published DNA research suggesting the human gene pool almost ran dry around 70,000 years ago.The scientists think the total population of our human ancestors fell as low as only a couple of thousand individuals.If true, it means humankind was dangerously close to being wiped out by disease or environmental disaster.The theory also revives the scientific debate over whether modern humans evolved in Africa, the so-called "Out of Africa" theory, or whether they evolved independently in locations around the globe.Rest of article: ABC.net.au: Page Not Found[This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-25-2003]

This is more a debate on when and how many genetic bottlnecks occurred in humans as we are far less genetically diverse than our nearest relatives i.e. chimps, gorillas and orang-utansKaessmann H, Wiebe V, Weiss G, Paabo S.
Great ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans.
Nat Genet. 2001 Feb;27(2):155-6.Kaessmann H, Wiebe V, Paabo S.
Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees.
Science. 1999 Nov 5;286(5442):1159-62.Another bit of controversy surrounds the Mungo Lake DNA sequences i.e. were they authentic mtDNA or contamination or a nuclear insert of a mtDNA sequenceAdcock GJ, Dennis ES, Easteal S, Huttley GA, Jermiin LS, Peacock WJ, Thorne A.
Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern human origins.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jan 16;98(2):537-42. Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Jan 8;99(1):541.

Could our lower genetic diversity be related to higher
inter-community breeding?Chimp tribes (for example) have a tendancy to slaughter 'foreign'
chimps that they find on their territory, and don't tend to take
on new members.Human cultures have inter-mingled more over the years.Just a thought/question really.

Given the cultural, morphological, and genetic differences among human groups (note there is more variation within than among groups and thus race is not really a valid concept for humans) I think humans did not necessarily interbreed any more in the past than different chimp groups do now.......and humans also have the tendency to slaughter those that do not belong to their own group.It is not entirely clear yet why we have lower genetic diversity than other apes.If SLPx is out there maybe he is more up on this than me?...now if you want to talk elephants then I can help out

quote:

---

Note there is more variation within than among groups

---

Isn't that what you would expect from common inter-breeding?Within a perceived group there would be wide genetic diversity
because of diverse input ... but between perceived groups the
differences would start to average out.Historically I'm thinking of things like, for example, the
constant invasions of Britain (Romans, Vikings, Normans, Celts,
Picts, Scots ....), inter-breeding of slaves (as likely happened
all across Europe during the Roman era, or during pharonic Egypt)
Inter-breeding with slaves (as did happen in America and England).All features of human culture that conspire to mix the genetics
up, and that are typically absent from other primate cultures.

quote:

---

and humans also have the tendency to slaughter those that do not belong to their own group.

---

Too true, unfortunately!

However, keep in mind that much of the interbreeding is very recent i.e. when long distance travel was facilitated. I doubt that admixture was as great 150,000 years ago up to about 10-15 thousand years ago when we were popping up all over the globe...and interbreeding does not explain why our genetic diversity is so low relative to say chimps that currently have a much lower effective population size. Either the other great apes always had a much larger effective population size until their recent diminished population state or our effective population size got knocked down at some point...or one could argue we just have an effective population size that is always lower than other primates though I don't think that would necessarily be supportable nor account for such a dramatic difference in genetic diversity between us and other primates (though I could be wrong).interbreeding would tend to increase the possible genetic diversity rather than decrease it...to decrease genetic diversity you either need a really skewed reproduction method over several generations i.e. one male inseminates all females and his son does the same in the next generation etc etc and only one or a few females are allowed to reproduce..there is no evidence of this for humans though some Y chromosome haplotypes do tend to dominate in local populations for this reason. But humans are fairly promiscious...the other way to reduce genetic diversity is for the population to crash overall severely....given that overall human genetic diverstiy is what is reduced relative to other primates (even gorillas that do tend to have a dominant male fathering all offspring in a group) it suggests that at one or several points in time, the human species was reduced to a low number of breeding individuals for some unkown reason.

quote:

---

PLEASE do not put words in my mouth!

---

C'mon Mike... no insult intended, but you did use that exact word without any qualification.No response to the actual meat of my post? About 2% of the world carries a particular mutation. About 10% of white Europeans have had it since the Black Death. It seems that resistance made their ancestors more likely to survive. This is a strong contradiction to your initial thought.

I see.Is there an estimated time-scale for the decline ... actually
I think I saw someon mention this somewhere ... and would it be
on the order of 17000-25000 years ago?