The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals

Moltuae

Moltuae

Rest In Peace
Reaction score
3,671
Location
Lancs, UK
The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ack-natural-history-museum-dna-study-reveals/
The earliest Britons were black-skinned, with dark curly hair and possibly blue eyes, new analysis of a 10,000-year-old Somerset skeleton has revealed.
Click to expand...

Well that makes me an immigrant!
I have the blue eyes but straight blonde hair (what's left of it) and a healthy pale programmer's tan. :D

Makes you realise that none of us are truly indigenous to our countries. In fact we may not even be indigenous to earth:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...um-ethane-university-sherbrooke-a8105851.html
 
That study is dodgy at best, mate. That skeleton for example was likely a slave.
 
NETWizz said:
That study is dodgy at best, mate. That skeleton for example was likely a slave.
Click to expand...

What's dodgy about it? I can't see anything there except DNA evidence. Also why do you think he was a slave? This is before the domestication of the horse or the use of the wheel or agriculture. Hunter\gatherer societies in general have little or no use for slaves. There's no logic to enslavement in such a situation - you either join with your enemies, drive them away or kill them but you don't take prisoners. There's no evidence that I could find of any slavery in hunter-gatherer societies. Slavery only became a "thing" when we started having large numbers of people NOT involved directly in the production of food.
 
Personally seems kind of cheesy to me.... LOL!!!!

Seriously though. I can appreciate people's scientific curiosity and such. But look at it this way. The Clovis Man hit North America 13,000 years ago. That's a heck of a lot farther than Africa to England, by like 5 or 6 times. So I take a lot of that stuff with a grain of salt.
 
I'm not sure why they're referring to "the first Britons." There are many human remains pre-dating this one in this country, notably Sussex Man. Unless they mean "the first Britons with a direct line of descent to the present-day inhabitants", perhaps.
 
If memory serves me right, 10,000 years ago it is thought that there were some land-bridges and the world was a quite different place.
 
I don't see how anyone could believe we were not created by a higher power when the genome is undeniably a computer. This should be especially obvious to those here.

Not only have multiple fields of mainstream science discovered the gemone is a computer. We have numerous peer reviewed science papers from respected journals in Biology, Epigenetics, Medical Science, Computer Science and Astronomy all directly stating the genome is a computer. And it is not just an analogy.The genome is planned to replace silicon computers because Moore's law is broken and at a dead end. It will likely be our computer of the future. A computer we did not create.

Even evolutionary biologists admit the genome is a computer:

The regulatory genome and the computer
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160607012547

a view of the evolutionary process leading to complex animals is that the essential properties of the genomic computer discussed in this essay were the condition for, and predate, complex animal forms: first came the properties of the genomic computer, including logic processing CRMs and regulatory network subcircuits, and then came programs for development built on these properties, and hence the animals.
Click to expand...

What basis would it be reasonable to believe computers design and program themselves?

Peer reviewed science says it is evidence we were created. You may think it was panspermia, But I see no reason to believe in aliens:

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes
Click to expand...
The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries.
Click to expand...
making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin
Click to expand...
The patterns are shown to match the criteria of an intelligent signal.
Click to expand...

To me, this is powerful evidence we were created!
 
alluseridsrejected said:
Do you know the purpose of SETI? not of stochastic process, irreducible to any natural origin, showing an intelligent signal. How would you interpret that?
Click to expand...

The purpose of SETI is in the name, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.. of which they have found none, yet.

Simply because something is not stochastic doesn't mean it's of an Extraordinary origin. I mean, the Theory of Evolution (Which has mounds of evidence) is not a stochastic process. So by your own logic, Evolution would be a more likely conclusion.

As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario.
Click to expand...

So, as they admit, there is no "signal" - and the signal they speak of is not testable unless the proposal (Not scientific) of seeding can be tested and verified.

Even then, it doesn't suggest a higher power even if the proposal was tested. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

It's an argument from analogy... a dubious proposition at best and likely a false analogy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GTP
phaZed said:
Simply because something is not stochastic doesn't mean it's of an Extraordinary origin. I mean, the Theory of Evolution (Which has mounds of evidence) is not a stochastic process.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a stochastic process? Excuse me, but mutations are totally stochastic:

Evolution of species from Darwin theory: A simple model
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037843711100940X

The mutation process is a stochastic process
Click to expand...

What is a Stochastic Process?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9796-3_1
The word stochastic is jargon for random. A stochastic process is a system which evolves in time while undergoing chance fluctuations.
Click to expand...

phaZed, post: 629692, member: 16388: "of which they have found none, yet."
Click to expand...

with the exception of the terrestrial genetic code...

But is seems to me, just the fact the genome is a computer should be enough. Based on what science do computers design and program themselves?
 
No need to go further, you are simply not grasping the concepts. Evolution is not random. It is the opposite of random.

SETI isn't searching for terrestrial intelligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTP
I will just let the science speak for itself:

► The SETI hypothesis of an intelligent signal in the genetic code is tested. ► The code is shown to possess an ensemble of same-style precision-type patterns. ► The patterns are shown to match the criteria of an intelligent signal.
Click to expand...
 
alluseridsrejected said:
I will just let the science speak for itself:
Click to expand...
You have already made up your mind, regardless of the science (or lack thereof).

What you have posted is not science. Where is the testing and methodology that claims the hypothesis true? A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation that has not been tested. To call a hypothesis scientific truth is to disregard the scientific method all together.

I hypothesize that humans were made by Smurfs because the sky is blue. Whop! See, humans are made by smurfs because I hypothesized it! No testing needed, just instant truth!

EDIT: Want to prove me wrong, then demonstrate where we can look or observe the "signal". Since it is tested and known (as you claim) then learning about the nuances of this extraterrestrial "signal" should be trivial.
 
Last edited:
alluseridsrejected said:
Based on what science do computers design and program themselves?
Click to expand...

This particular argument you're making is just a variation on the "well SOMETHING must have caused the universe to exist, it's too complex to have EVOLVED"

But where do you stop? If a "higher power" made us then who made it? At some point in that reasoning you have to accept that at some point things just kicked off on their own.
 
phaZed said:
You have already made up your mind, regardless of the science (or lack thereof).

What you have posted is not science. Where is the testing and methodology that claims the hypothesis true? A hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation that has not been tested. To call a hypothesis scientific truth is to disregard the scientific method all together.

I hypothesize that humans were made by Smurfs because the sky is blue. Whop! See, humans are made by smurfs because I hypothesized it! No testing needed, just instant truth!
Click to expand...

The genome is clearly a computer. Not only that, it is likely our computer of the future. Why is it unreasonable to believe computers are the result of design and being programmed? Why is that alone not enough? Do you not accept that the genome is a computer?
 
seedubya said:
This particular argument you're making is just a variation on the "well SOMETHING must have caused the universe to exist, it's too complex to have EVOLVED"

But where do you stop? If a "higher power" made us then who made it? At some point in that reasoning you have to accept that at some point things just kicked off on their own.
Click to expand...

So then you think those that believe computers have programmers are being unreasonable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top