Origins Thread

[AN2]

Even Myles and his shrivelled brain know what I believe in.

I honestly don't

Do you believe in any formula of us being evolved, or are you an Adam and Eve guy? It's a fair question!

 

[Tiger]

I honestly don't

Do you believe in any formula of us being evolved, or are you an Adam and Eve guy? It's a fair question!

The ‘Adam and Eve’ question is always an interesting one.

Atheists tend to ask it as a form of small minded mockery, unaware that their own high priests of science agree that all of humankind came from two parents, which they call ‘mitochondrial Adam and Eve’. So, the idea of ‘Adam and Eve’ isn't something we should just dismiss as a simple myth.

Biologically, every one of us has two parents, which is encoded directly into our DNA. The presence of X and Y chromosomes is a fundamental signal — an indelible mark that every human being is the product of a father and a mother.

So, whether we call these original parents ‘Adam and Eve’ or simply ‘our first mother and father,’ the core truth remains: we all originate from this two-parent structure, and it’s integral to who we are as human beings. It’s not just symbolic; it’s biologically foundational.

 

[AN2]

The ‘Adam and Eve’ question is always an interesting one.

Atheists tend to ask it as a form of small minded mockery,

I wasn't particularly engaging in mockery, more trying to get you to answer a straightforward question

unaware that their own high priests of science agree that all of humankind came from two parents, which they call ‘mitochondrial Adam and Eve’. So, the idea of ‘Adam and Eve’ isn't something we should just dismiss as a simple myth.

Atheists People who believe in evolution don't believe that our ancestors were human, or that we popped into existence. Is that what you believe?

Biologically, every one of us has two parents, which is encoded directly into our DNA. The presence of X and Y chromosomes is a fundamental signal — an indelible mark that every human being is the product of a father and a mother.

So, whether we call these original parents ‘Adam and Eve’ or simply ‘our first mother and father,’ the core truth remains: we all originate from this two-parent structure, and it’s integral to who we are as human beings. It’s not just symbolic; it’s biologically foundational.

 

[Tiger]

I wasn't particularly engaging in mockery, more trying to get you to answer a straightforward question


Atheists People who believe in evolution don't believe that our ancestors were human, or that we popped into existence. Is that what you believe?

Is that so? Walk us through the history of the X Y chromosomes then.

Was it one particular fertile couple of apes out of the presumably hundreds of thousands (if not more apes) that gave birth to the parents of all humankind, passing down this one strand of X and Y chromosomes? Some sort of astronomically small ‘fluke’?

Or do you think that we’ve all arrived here via different ‘ape’ heritage?

 

[AN2]

Is that so? Walk us through the history of the X Y chromosomes then.

Was it one particular fertile couple of apes out of the presumably hundreds of thousands (if not more apes) that gave birth to the parents of all humankind, passing down this one strand of X and Y chromosomes? Some sort of astronomically small ‘fluke’?

Or do you think that we’ve all arrived here via different ‘ape’ heritage?

It's funny that you say that my evolutionary theory is decades out of date yet you push the trope that we're descended from apes. We, along with our other living primate cousins have a common ape-like ancestor.

You stíll haven't answered the question

 

[Tiger]

It's funny that you say that my evolutionary theory is decades out of date yet you push the trope that we're descended from apes. We, along with our other living primate cousins have a common ape-like ancestor.

You stíll haven't answered the question

I don’t think we’re descended from apes or a ‘common primate ancestor’. Both have no solid evidence. There’s a real reason why, in the past 10 years scientists have been rejecting evolution 1.0 (Darwinian evolution) and coming up with new theories (evolution 2.0). Richard Dawkins and his followers are stuck in evolution 1.0.


In terms of answering your question. Let’s get down to it: Is every person — from Aboriginal Australians to yuppies in Manhattan and nomads from Outer Mongolia — descended from two original human parents? Yes or no? The origin of the X and Y chromosomes says ‘yes,’ pointing to a common human origin, not an undefined ‘ape-like ancestor.’ I believe in those two original parents, created with purpose by a higher intelligence — the same intelligence behind the laws of the universe that sustain all life.

Where’s the solid evidence that we’re descended from an ape-like creature? Frankly, it’s fantasy. The fossil record doesn’t back it up. Without real proof, the story of common descent is nothing more than an imaginative leap, dressed up as science.

Can you provide an answer to the question about the origin of the X and Y chromosomes?

 

[AN2]

I don’t think we’re descended from apes or a ‘common primate ancestor’. Both have no solid evidence. There’s a real reason why, in the past 10 years scientists have been rejecting evolution 1.0 (Darwinian evolution) and coming up with new theories (evolution 2.0). Richard Dawkins and his followers are stuck in evolution 1.0.

I'm simply asking you whether you believe humans are evolved?

Do you believe that there was a time before in which the human species didn't exist and that we are descended from other living creatures that weren't human?

In terms of answering your question. Let’s get down to it: Is every person — from Aboriginal Australians to yuppies in Manhattan and nomads from Outer Mongolia — descended from two original human parents? Yes or no? The origin of the X and Y chromosomes says ‘yes,’ pointing to a common human origin, not an undefined ‘ape-like ancestor.’ I believe in those two original parents, created with purpose by a higher intelligence — the same intelligence behind the laws of the universe that sustain all life.

Where’s the solid evidence that we’re descended from an ape-like creature? Frankly, it’s fantasy. The fossil record doesn’t back it up. Without real proof, the story of common descent is nothing more than an imaginative leap, dressed up as science.

Can you provide an answer to the question about the origin of the X and Y chromosomes?

 

[Tiger]

I'm simply asking you whether you believe humans are evolved?

Do you believe that there was a time before in which the human species didn't exist and that we are descended from other living creatures that weren't human?

I’ve already said that I believe humans didn’t evolve from non-human creatures but came from two specific parents, which the existence of the X and Y chromosomes supports. These chromosomes point to a unique, common origin for all humankind — not a random progression from non-human life forms. There is no bio-chemical evidence to counter this.

This is one way discussion at the moment.

Now, for this to be a proper discussion, it can’t just be me answering all the questions. You’ll need to engage and answer a few yourself rather than deflecting each time. So, I’ll ask again: where’s the concrete, fossil-based evidence of an unbroken lineage from non-human ancestors to humans?

Do you believe that all humans across the planet, from Aborigines in Australia to Norwegians have descended from one set of parents?

Yes or no?

 

[AN2]

I’ve already said that I believe humans didn’t evolve from non-human creatures but came from two specific parents,

Who, Adam and Eve? Were they human? Where did they come from?

which the existence of the X and Y chromosomes supports. These chromosomes point to a unique, common origin for all humankind — not a random progression from non-human life forms. There is no bio-chemical evidence to counter this.

This is one way discussion at the moment.

Now, for this to be a proper discussion, it can’t just be me answering all the questions. You’ll need to engage and answer a few yourself rather than deflecting each time. So, I’ll ask again: where’s the concrete, fossil-based evidence of an unbroken lineage from non-human ancestors to humans?

Do you believe that all humans across the planet, from Aborigines in Australia to Norwegians have descended from one set of parents?

Yes or no?

I believe in evolution, which obviously includes humans.

It's fairly apparent that you don't.. Which begs the question, why in the whole wide world of f*ck are you arguing about it, evolution one point O, two point O etc.

 

[Tiger]

Who, Adam and Eve? Were they human? Where did they come from?


I believe in evolution, which obviously includes humans.

It's fairly apparent that you don't.. Which begs the question, why in the whole wide world of f*ck are you arguing about it, evolution one point O, two point O etc.

That’s a pathetic response.

James: you haven’t answered ANY of my questions. Instead, you’re just recycling your beliefs without engaging with the actual evidence or the implications of what I’ve said. Your responses are superficial and fail to address the critical issues at hand.

Repeating phrases like ‘evolution 1.0 or 2.0’ doesn’t make your argument valid; it just shows a lack of depth and understanding of the topic. If you’re going to claim you believe in evolution, then put some substance behind it. Stop dodging the questions and actually tackle the arguments being presented.

Answer the question about all of humanity coming from 2 parents. Do you think this is true or not?

 

[AN2]

That’s a pathetic response.

James: you haven’t answered ANY of my questions. Instead, you’re just recycling your beliefs without engaging with the actual evidence or the implications of what I’ve said. Your responses are superficial and fail to address the critical issues at hand.

Repeating phrases like ‘evolution 1.0 or 2.0’ doesn’t make your argument valid; it just shows a lack of depth and understanding of the topic. If you’re going to claim you believe in evolution, then put some substance behind it. Stop dodging the questions and actually tackle the arguments being presented.

I don't use those phrases, those are your phrases

Answer the question about all of humanity coming from 2 parents. Do you think this is true or not?

I find it difficult to parse your question - it's so fucking stupid (in a debate about evolution)

 

[Tiger]

I don't use those phrases, those are your phrases


I find it difficult to parse your question - it's so fucking stupid (in a debate about evolution)

It's telling that you resort to calling my questions 'stupid' instead of actually addressing them.

That kind of dismissal shows a lack of intellectual rigor and an inability to engage with challenging ideas. If you can't handle a bit of complexity in a debate about evolution, maybe you shouldn't be in this conversation at all.

You’ve never offered anything to this debate.

It’s not about whether my questions fit neatly into your worldview; it's about whether you can back up your beliefs with real evidence. It’s clear that you can’t. So, instead of throwing around insults, why not put in the effort to actually engage with the issues? It’s time to step up or step aside.

 

[AN2]

It's telling that you resort to calling my questions 'stupid' instead of actually addressing them.

That kind of dismissal shows a lack of intellectual rigor and an inability to engage with challenging ideas. If you can't handle a bit of complexity in a debate about evolution, maybe you shouldn't be in this conversation at all.

You’ve never offered anything to this debate.

It’s not about whether my questions fit neatly into your worldview; it's about whether you can back up your beliefs with real evidence. It’s clear that you can’t. So, instead of throwing around insults, why not put in the effort to actually engage with the issues? It’s time to step up or step aside.

Dude, you don't believe that humans are evolved

And you believe that "all of humanity" is the product of "two specific [human] parents"

Am I misrepresenting what you believe?

 

[Tiger]

Dude, you don't believe that humans are evolved

And you believe that "all of humanity" is the product of "two specific [human] parents"

Am I misrepresenting what you believe?

I believe that all of humanity descends from two specific human parents, which is a position rooted in the evidence of X and Y chromosomes, not some fantastical notion. As you are an intellectual coward, you can't even say whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

What’s baffling is your continued failure to provide anything of value in this discussion. Instead of addressing my points or engaging with the evidence, you’re just throwing out vague assertions and mischaracterizations. If you want to debate, bring some substance to the table instead of dancing around the issue. Otherwise, this conversation is going nowhere.

Last chance for you, otherwise I’ll have to block you for spamming again. You’ve had plenty of chance to make your point and answer my questions.

 

[AN2]

I believe that all of humanity descends from two specific human parents, which is a position rooted in the evidence of X and Y chromosomes, not some fantastical notion. As you are an intellectual coward, you can't even say whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

What’s baffling is your continued failure to provide anything of value in this discussion. Instead of addressing my points or engaging with the evidence, you’re just throwing out vague assertions and mischaracterizations. If you want to debate, bring some substance to the table instead of dancing around the issue. Otherwise, this conversation is going nowhere.

Last chance for you, otherwise I’ll have to block you for spamming again. You’ve had plenty of chance to make your point and answer my questions.

Block me, you lying piece of shit. I'll continue exposing your bullshit elsewhere

 

[Tiger]

Block me, you lying piece of shit. I'll continue exposing your bullshit elsewhere

You’ll expose nothing.

You haven’t read a book since reading a Stephen King novel in the 1990’s.

You clearly haven’t a clue about this subject matter which is why you never say anything of substance.

 

[Tiger]

This is a fascinating study that deals another blow to Darwin’s theory. Although this article interprets the study within the prism of (macro) evolution being legit, the reality is that it is yet another validation for proponents of Intelligent Design.

From an ID perspective, this research suggests that (micro) evolution is guided by order and purpose, contrasting sharply with Richard Dawkins’ view of evolution as a "Blind Watchmaker" process driven by random chance. Dawkin’s is becoming more irrelevant and outmoded by every passing week.

The University of Nottingham study examined the "pangenome" of a species and discovered that gene interactions follow predictable patterns. Instead of chaotic, independent mutations, genes seem to function within an organized "ecosystem" where certain genes depend on others, hinting at an intentional structure.

This predictability resonates with ID's concept of design. Dawkins posits that complexity arises from undirected randomness, but these findings imply a logical, almost programmed arrangement of genes, much like machine parts that rely on each other. It’s clear that this reflects purposeful design within genes, where "gene families" operate in supportive or restrictive ways according to a pre-set order.

New evolution discovery is being called "nothing short of revolutionary"

New research is shaking up how we think about evolution, suggesting there's a level of predictability influenced by genes and genetic history.

www.earth.com

Overall, this study invites us to rethink some fundamental assumptions about life and evolution. It’s not just about chance anymore; there’s a pattern and order we can tap into.

 

[Tiger]

For context of Jambo’s latest bout of idiocy, here’s the actual link to the debate which he decided to copy and paste someone else’s interpretation of. Being an unemployed alcoholic, this is all we can really expect in terms of his level of debate.


View: https://youtu.be/L-KPfFPIaVU?feature=shared


For anyone who listens to this, you will see that the interpretation he posted is horses gockey.




James, posting someone else's biased rant about a 15-year-old debate that went poorly for your side doesn’t help your case—it just highlights that you don’t really understand the subject at all. Prothero’s account is riddled with ad hominem attacks, emotional rhetoric, and strawman arguments rather than substantive points. If you had actually listened to the debate you would see that he spends more time insulting his opponents, complaining about the moderator, and patting himself on the back than actually addressing any of the scientific issues.

You obviously never listened to a single word of the 2 hour debate (as you clearly don't have the attention span capable of lasting that long) so lazily reposting Don Prothero’s 15-year-old tirade about a debate does nothing to help your case—it just highlights how out of touch you are with the subject. Prothero’s account is riddled with emotional bluster, ad hominem attacks, and smug self-congratulation, but it’s remarkably light on substantive science. Instead of addressing core issues like the origins of specified information or irreducible complexity, he resorts to mocking his opponents and appealing to his own authority—a hallmark of someone defending a crumbling paradigm. In fact it's very similar to your level of argumentation. No science, just childish ad homs.

What’s even more damning is your failure to recognize how much the landscape of microbiology and genetics has advanced in the last 15 years. Discoveries in epigenetics, molecular machines, and information theory have only deepened the challenges to Neo-Darwinism while providing strong support for Intelligent Design. By clinging to Prothero’s outdated rhetoric, you’re showing that your grasp of this topic is stuck in the past, ignoring the significant body of new evidence that has emerged. If anything, this just underscores your unwillingness to engage with the real science at play.

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

James, I know you don’t read books, but you should do yourself a favour and get this for Christmas.

 

[Tiger]

Answering your question over here @Professor

So, here are the five most well known robust lines of evidence that are a stumbling block for evolutionists (all of which have been discussed many times in this thread)

a) Irreducible Complexity: Molecular machines like the bacterial flagellum or the ATP synthase motor demonstrate systems that fail without all their components present—making stepwise evolution via mutations highly implausible.

b) Fine-tuning of DNA Information: DNA isn’t just a molecule; it’s an information storage system encoding complex algorithms. The origin of specified information, particularly the instructions for building life forms, remains unexplained by undirected processes.

c) The Cambrian Explosion: Sudden appearances of diverse animal forms with no apparent evolutionary precursors challenge gradual Darwinian processes

d) Epigenetics and Non-Coding DNA: Discoveries in epigenetics show regulatory systems that go beyond random mutations and natural selection, pointing toward pre-designed adaptability mechanisms.

e) Cosmic Fine-Tuning for Life: The extreme precision of constants in the universe necessary for life (e.g., gravity, electromagnetic force) suggests purpose, not accident.

These examples aren’t fringe but are grounded in empirical data and highlight areas where Neo-Darwinism offers no satisfactory explanation.

There are also tons of recent studies challenge the Neo-Darwinian framework, revealing that mutation rates are influenced by genomic and environmental factors, undermining the notion of purely random mutations driving evolution. This suggests more intricate mechanisms at work, requiring a conceptual expansion beyond traditional model sifting toward an "Integrative Synthesis," incorporating epigenetics, systems biology, and adaptive mechanisms that go beyond gene-centric views.

Additionally there are also other emerging fields in biology—such as niche construction theory—which are forcing a reconsideration of how evolutionary processes could even possibly operate. While some evolutionary biologists are attempting to integrate these ideas into a broader synthesis, there remains a lack of consensus on how to reconcile these findings with the traditional Neo-Darwinian model, mainly because there is no logical way.


In terms of Universities offering courses in evolution. That doesn't really mean anything in practical terms. It's a box ticking exercise.

Those same Universities almost certainly also all have a 'gender studies' course or a 'queer theory' course too. Universities often offer niche courses or disciplines that have limited direct applications or employment opportunities. There's stuff like - Medieval Studies, Comparative Mythology, Paleography, and Theoretical Mathematics, which are primarily relevant in academia or niche fields like museums or archives. Similarly, Postmodern Literary Criticism, have little practical connection to mainstream industries.