Newsgroup: comp.lang.c++
Subject: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.
From: Paavo Helde <myfirstname@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:25 -0600
"Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@...> wrote in
news:QrCdnTB7VPpkISLPnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@...
> Are you serious - "there was no first human because humans evolved"?
> Even if your "theory" is correct, there still *must* have been the
> *first* human when the mutations produced the very first embryo which
> matched the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens in
> scientific nomenclature.
> This is a scientific fact and is true whether you believe in any of
> the Bible or not.
Do you realize that no two people share the same exact DNA (except
identical twins), so there is no exactly defined "DNA profile of Homo
Sapiens". The DNA of all people are just similar to some degree, that's
it.
Do you realize that DNA of a species is subject to constant mutations and
the DNA of people 3M years ago was quite different from humans today, so
the "DNA profile of Homo Sapiens" has inevitably changed over time.
Do you realize that there is no exact definition of any single species?
Species are defined only by distinction from other species, and this
definition depends on our knowledge about other species, which is vague
even about currently living ones, not to speak about historic ones. We
cannot know when Homo Sapiens branched off from the last other species
because this species is probably long dead and forgotten. If we talk
about currently living species then we are talking about humans and
chimps. If/when chimps die off, the branching point defined this way will
jump back many millions of years.
Do you realize that any tiny mutation in the DNA might be the starting
point of splitting a species into two, but this happens only very rarely?
You might want to call the person first possessing this mutation
Adam/Eve, but there are large problems with this, see above and below.
For starters, the mutation could have happened on the chimp side of the
branch, not ours.
Do you realize that this DNA branching point between living species can
shift back in time when some sub-branches die off? For example, if just a
bunch of chimps carrying some gene common with humans dies off, the
branching point between chimps and humans can jump back in time by many
generations.
So, you can come up with many definitions for "Adam", which seem quite
arbitrary and changing in time. As for your definition ("first person
matching the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens"), it even
does not make any sense. Please read up a book or two on the subject and
only then please come to tell us what is a "scientific fact" and what is
not.
Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
future...
Paavo
Subject: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.
From: Paavo Helde <myfirstname@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:22:25 -0600
"Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixFour@...> wrote in
news:QrCdnTB7VPpkISLPnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@...
> Are you serious - "there was no first human because humans evolved"?
> Even if your "theory" is correct, there still *must* have been the
> *first* human when the mutations produced the very first embryo which
> matched the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens in
> scientific nomenclature.
> This is a scientific fact and is true whether you believe in any of
> the Bible or not.
Do you realize that no two people share the same exact DNA (except
identical twins), so there is no exactly defined "DNA profile of Homo
Sapiens". The DNA of all people are just similar to some degree, that's
it.
Do you realize that DNA of a species is subject to constant mutations and
the DNA of people 3M years ago was quite different from humans today, so
the "DNA profile of Homo Sapiens" has inevitably changed over time.
Do you realize that there is no exact definition of any single species?
Species are defined only by distinction from other species, and this
definition depends on our knowledge about other species, which is vague
even about currently living ones, not to speak about historic ones. We
cannot know when Homo Sapiens branched off from the last other species
because this species is probably long dead and forgotten. If we talk
about currently living species then we are talking about humans and
chimps. If/when chimps die off, the branching point defined this way will
jump back many millions of years.
Do you realize that any tiny mutation in the DNA might be the starting
point of splitting a species into two, but this happens only very rarely?
You might want to call the person first possessing this mutation
Adam/Eve, but there are large problems with this, see above and below.
For starters, the mutation could have happened on the chimp side of the
branch, not ours.
Do you realize that this DNA branching point between living species can
shift back in time when some sub-branches die off? For example, if just a
bunch of chimps carrying some gene common with humans dies off, the
branching point between chimps and humans can jump back in time by many
generations.
So, you can come up with many definitions for "Adam", which seem quite
arbitrary and changing in time. As for your definition ("first person
matching the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens"), it even
does not make any sense. Please read up a book or two on the subject and
only then please come to tell us what is a "scientific fact" and what is
not.
Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
future...
Paavo
via Usenet Forums - Usenet Search,Free Usenet - comp.lang.c++ http://www.pocketbinaries.com/usenet-forums/showthread.php?160775-OT-Re-Hope-for-your-project-a-little-off-topic&goto=newpost
View all the progranning help forums at:
http://www.pocketbinaries.com/usenet-forums/forumdisplay.php?128-Coding-forums
No comments:
Post a Comment