Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for May 26, 2010

Be careful what you asked for, remember that little trip to the other Mars?

Woohoo, I profiside this one!

My yesterday’s comment…. Danae, the time period you’re looking for is just before God said “Let us make man in our image….”

Wonder if I should start wearing sackcloth and eating locusts.

Actually, I think the time they are looking for is the time before man created religion. That is when all logic flew out of the window.

Dr Who can’t find a time either But he uses a TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimensions In Space), not a defibrillator

HappyChappy said: “Actually, I think the time they are looking for is the time before man created religion.”

Too late, friend. Neanderthal burial practices indicate that they believed in an afterlife – so there was religion even before man was quite man.

An animal is unable to conceive of anything beyond immediate reality; our ability to do so is one of the things that makes us human. Perhaps you would argue that an animal is better off? I have two cats who would agree…. :)

Jeffrey has it right Danae, and so did I for that matter! I too predicted this outcome in yesterdays comments. But I’ll let grazer wear the sackcloths and eat the locusts for the two of us.

The other Mars series was too fun… I wonder what will happen with this one…

Somebodyshort, Does Stockwell Day, know Sarah Palin?

Here is Danae’s opportunity:

Carve her image in a cave or better yet, carve it on the rock that will eventually become the Sphinx. move to the 21st century and arrive to her new status as demi-goddess.

Only someone who knows nothing about religion worth knowing would say logic flew out the window when religion was invented.

Idolatry now (which is what most religion is, admittedly)… the only thing that might make less logical sense than that is atheism.

Hm, which should I choose: worshipping myself, or worshipping some other limited material thing? Tough choice. Dumb and Dumber.

C’mon, folks, this is Apologetics 101. Sound logic begins with sound religious faith. And part of that faith lies in understanding why so few have it in this age: God isn’t trying to save the world, yet.

Scatty: if you like logic and science, at least apply it correctly. DNA shows we aren’t related to N closely at all, IF at all, but the religion evolution has been made into can’t allow for any doubts about it’s theories despite a paucity of proof.

DNA meanwhile has proved we have a single female and male ancestor for all mankind. This was REALLY old news, but at least it proves what the Bible says is true.

If you like illogic, Chappy, start with that.

And, no, I don’t think there should be men around in this dino scene, either.

@freeholder1: But the Creation Museum told me men and dinosaurs coexisted – they even had a saddle on a triceratops! Are you trying to say they lied to me?!?

People weren’t so stupid and annoying until Adam took a nap and lost his rib. Then the annoying nagging caused him to do something stupid, He listened to her (stupid) and did what SHE wanted. Which begat Delilah, Jezebel, Salome, and the Queen of Sheba. Stupid and annoying.

Why didn’t the machine go ”Vworp-VWORP”? OH, of course…..Patent infringement.

Maybe she should be more specific by what she means by stupid and annoying.

Before Spam? Before Advertisements? Before sarcasm as a form of language? February 15, 1992?

freedholder1 must have drunk the kool aid! … but is a great example of why Danae wants to be somewhen else.

freeholder1: you should go back and look at the most recent science on the relationship of “modern” humans and Neanderthals. It appears we shared a common ancestor as recently as 400,000 years ago. That ancestor spread out of Africa into Europe and Asia, eventually leading to the Neanderthal, while its descendants in Africa evolved into homo sapiens, which eventually spread out of Africa and displaced the Neanderthal. Further, very recent research indicates that our ancestors did mate with Neanderthals, so we carry DNA that is mostly from our common ancestor, with most of what’s left from the African branch of the tree, but a wee bit from the Neanderthal branch.

We are a strange species indeed… and that’s before we managed to produce Danae…

As I said yesterday, it all began the moment we started to speak - profanity, but also stupidity and organized religion. Defining religion is what makes the big mistake, then setting aside a PLACE for it. I prefer to pray silently in my garden (because it is familiar and peaceful-lack of distractions) but it can be ANYWHERE. Going to a place, to BE there, to be seen and see others and disparage those who are not, and those who go to a different place………..and so on - my point!

@freeholder, yes, they do use those terms for the most recent ancestor of all people that we can trace. There is no way to know if either could speak, or that they used those names.

However, “Mitochondrial Eve” lived around 200,000-150,000 years ago, likely in east Africa, while “Y-chromosomal Adam”, from whom all living men are descended patrilineally, probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa. He lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.

We have no real evidence for when language developed; around 50,000 years ago is a possibility, since other “modern” cultural elements also appeared about that time. If true, this might be close to the “Adam’s” life–but it might not.

@vldazzle, perhaps you are perfect without organized religion. For myself, I seem to be weaker than others–I find I need the presence of a community of like-minded people, and above all else, the presence of a spirit better than any of us, to keep reminding me and helping me be a better person. That is what I find in my faith and my Church.

grazer: profiside?????

This is a religious cartoon?

Right, bmonk, with our radiation testing of +or - how may thousand years. Add in the idea you may not have found all the fossils and we’re off to the races. Add too that they really don’t WANT to give the opposing religion an Adam and Eve proof.

Puddlegum: N and C both existed with us at the same time for awhile(something the Bible even says) so I can see where a DNA test might find a cross over somewhere. Doesn’t prove ancestry. Merely mixed breeding (also a biblical statement). Now do the math based on the number of genetic differences and the length of time for them to occur and compare it with the time it’s supposed to have occurred and you find we couldn’t have made the jump. Genetically, a pig makes more sense. Or sudden appearance.

I’m truly interested to see the results of testing on the Dino “collagen” and DNA from 2 years ago by the New Mexico researcher. Java man or kick in the butt to Dino time of extinction?

Please note, folks, I don’t say evolution is wrong, merely that it’s become a religion rather than a theory. If you want to put faith in science, fine, but admit it’s faith and don’t call it science. I see no reason God couldn’t have used evolution as a tool and the Bible be symbolic on creation as easily as factual. I sure don’t see it as live or die for belief in Christ. The problem for me is that most of what we keep learning keeps verifying or at l;east supporting the “outline” of creation in the Bible.

You want some legit science related to Biblical claims as opposed to the creationist jargon that gets the media, try “Reasons to Believe” website.

And the kool-aid wasn’t electric, but it was DELICIOUS. Kea! (Incidentally, Keasy is awesomely funny and anarchistic. You might read the books that financed his fun.)

freeholder1 said, about 3 theories ago

Right, bmonk, with our radiation testing of +or - how may thousand years. Add in the idea you may not have found all the fossils and we’re off to the races. Add too that they really don’t WANT to give the opposing religion an Adam and Eve proof.

Actually, the Mito.Eve and YChrom.Adam were not postulated from fossils, but from DNA analysis. We don’t have the actual fossils–or, rather, I would be utterly astounded if we did. So the fossils we have don’t matter in this case at all.

Please to notice that the actual account of “Adam” and “Eve” is really not until the second chapter of Genesis. Therefore, how long does this take place after the sixth day(where the quote that Joe Doty gives is from)? We really do not know. God can be as inscrutable as is possible when He wants to. It is up to us to study and learn in order to be acceptable in His eyes. God wants us to be rational and learned. Please, be this way.

Pike: Genesis was written in a Semetic tradition of giving an overview, then going back and retelling the story from another focus. Good point on us needing to get informed.

Evolution guys, do me a favor. Read “The God Gene” or even a synopsis of it. Then read the criticism of it, some of which is well founded but some of which is clearly a bias applied. Then APPLY the standards of the critics to the New genetics used to “prove” N and C were our ancestors DESPITE the lack of relationship. REALLY apply the same standard. The evidence ends up disproven by the standards of its supporters. Evolution is simple naturalist religion that means you get slanted research and not real “control” on the research. Please, don’t believe me, but really look at it.

bmonk: Not from fossils or ancient bone of C or N? Where’d they get the DNA? Had to be a bone or fossilized bone or some part of a N or C somewhere to begin with. I think you been hitting my kool-aid, kid. Unless this is all theoretic DNA in which case you just proved my case.

Great commentary, Wiley. I can’t help but be amused by the irony when looking at the subject matter of the strip and then at the bizarre tangent that the comments here have taken. Is there anything more stupid and annoying than everyone ignoring the comic that they came here to read and, instead, arguing over who’s imaginary friend is better?

Someone who begins their post by complaining of off-topic conversation then ends said post by stating which side of the argument he professes ?

freeholder1: It is my understanding that the DNA evidence is an extrapolation backward of the rate of change in certain basic human DNA. The rate of change over time is obtained by comparing DNA from today with DNA from known historic sources. You can interpret that any way you like, but to me it seems to imply a very large plus/minus factor over several hundred thousand years.

Evolution is no religion. It is well-based science. Dinosaurs conked out long before Australopithecus (Lucy) let alone the Neanderthals. And those Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) were indeed related to modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

Got everything right but the first and the last part, lindz. Genetically, we’re closer to Chimps and if the behavior has you saying no:

Psychologists from the University of Sterling in Great Britain and an international team of collaborators studied chimpanzees in captivity and in the wild, respectively, and results from both studies suggest these creatures respond to death in much the same way humans do Meaning the notion that N is somehow more related to us and his behavior suggests it has no basis for argument. Every behavior listed above as making them “human” has a similar act in other ‘lower” animals.

And your point is exactly right, Darth: it can be INTERPRETED any way you like,. like any religious evidence. There needs to be a solid way to interpret before any emphatic statement of “proof”.The years come into the millions from the first life to us, several hundred thousand from the N and C to us.

The simple fact is, we have a lot less in common with them than other species. We have much more with the Chimp. A real examination of a possible connection there never gets made since we”Diverged before the Hominids” and have “fossil evidence” which was originally based on the fact they looked like us structurally so they must have been like us. No scientist would accept that as a proof of anything these days. There are limited controls groups for back-testing and ASSUMPTIONS that they really are testing back and not actually mutating the strain wiht the process. Add a limited supply of DNA to do it. Making such broad statements like Lindz especially that they do match, is shoddy. no other branch of science would make such a vow without constantly testing the theory. The statement would be “tends to support the theory.” No that it’s proven.

When you base a Definite on limited knowledge in a relatively new field of study, you are not a scientist any longer. You are a priest. When , what was it? 50% of the DNA doesn’t match but you still say we are definitely related then go about to prove we are related rather than pursuing where the evidence actually led, you are acting on faith, not following the evidence.

Most striking evidence of it is that the researcher in New Mexico who found the DNA and col. evidence in dinosaur bones was asked how she made such a striking discovery and she said no one had ever looked before because they were certain they would find nothing. They had their minds made up, no sense really testing the hypothesis.

@Siberman: Hence the irony! …and (to be pedantic) I began my post with on topic adulation for Wiley. ;-)

Hey Jeffrey, can you give me a lift to before there were comments on this strip ? Thanks

My oh My!! Just look at all the long and wordy replies my little comment generated.

Me thinks that, when logic flew out of the window, humour was holding its hand.

Just for the record, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic, God may or indeed may not exist. My point of view is that all organised religions are bad for human kind and are in fact the root of most of the evil done to human kind (or Neanderthal kind).

Logic says that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist but yet we have a Creationist Museum that insist that they did. So it bocomes quite obvious that religion and logic cannot co-exist and one only has to go back to before religion to find logic.

Amen HappyChappy!

As for the drivel regarding evolution – as an anthropologist, it doesn’t even warrant an answer from this end.

Let’s just go back to when the world was logical – which may have been before the human takeover.