• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When did we become human?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
This is completely backwards. Those who claim an immutable truth (and are then shown that truth to be wrong) lose all claim to reason and logic by fiat.
Click to expand...
By fiat? Only if science and religion were impervious to refinement and development. Since they're not, there could be no such rigidity. By implication, science became obsolete the first time it discovered anything.

Those who work with best ideas, however, are not only allowed but actively encouraged to weed out the bad ideas by trying to invalidate them, leaving only the good ones behind to serve as the bases for even better ideas.
Click to expand...
This applies equally to religious development.

Here's the difference:

"The sun revolves around the earth."
The religious claim: Because God declared it so.
Follow on ideas from the religious claim: God loves us.

The scientific claim: Because it moves around in the sky.
Follow-on ideas from the scientific claim: geometry, three dimensional thinking

Breakthrough: better instruments

Effect on the religious claim: invalidated
Result: New religious claim; "God made us revolve around the sun... because he loves us."

Effect on the scientific claim: improved
Result: trigonometry, astronomy, glass grinding and lens technology (and, eventually, understanding of Relativity, demonstrated by lensing).
Click to expand...
Rather leading use of terms, there. 'Invalidated' and 'improved'? Except science's previous baselines are also invalidated. Religion too is improved for the inclusion of this new and greater perspective.

It never fails to surprise me how people can hold science and religion as being contradistinctive. Both progress and develop over time. Similarly, both may be subject to corruption and agenda. Look to the scientific quackery of biological determinism utilised to justify the transatlantic slave trade, for the proof of this.
 
Rainman05 said:
No.

No.

Somewhat true, but you start off on false presumptions.

Humanity had a common ancestors with the primates around 2mil-2.5mil years ago. Then we split apart from them and a new species was born, whose evolutionary process eventually led to us.

You may have heard of them. Homo habilis. Homo ergaster. Homo erectus. etc.

Now what you do not know is that different homini species lived in different places. The Neanderthals never existed outside of Europe and parts of the middle east like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. There were no Neanderthals in Africa, most of Asia or the Americas and they are the closest homini that existed on the planet... before us, homo sapiens. In fact, some claim that homo sapiens may have coexisted for a time with the neanderthals... most likely ended up killing them or assimilating them. Who knows.

In fact the last common homini ancestor before homo sapiens was homo halderbengis (i hope I wrote him correctly) which lived around 500k years ago, 300k years before homo sapiens.
It is also the most likely candidate for the forefather of homo sapiens, us. But homo halderbengis existed everywhere. he got around places. His bones are testament to that.
While it is true that the most accepted theory is that homo sapiens evolved solely in Africa and then migrated out around 100k years ago taking over the whole planet... it's not the only one. It just seems the most likely one.

The alternative, which for me makes more sense, is that homo sapiens evolved independently in various regions. You have homo halderbengis all over the place.. why couldn't homo sapiens evolve nicely all over from this common ancestor? Would make more sense...
Click to expand...


There IS evidence backing your hypothesis:

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

[end quote]

Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) « Why Evolution Is True
Click to expand...
 
yobarnacle said:
1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? …

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!


We are children of God.

We aren't going to heaven to be the choir.

We are family.

Children grow up to be like the parent.

we are going to be pantheon. :D

God doesn't want evil, selfish folks to have the abilities he will give US!

This world is tryouts, will you make the team?

As for those who call on "mother" earth, will they evolve to be planets?
Click to expand...

can you translate it for me :lol:
 
yobarnacle said:
There IS evidence backing your hypothesis:

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

[end quote]

Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) « Why Evolution Is True
Click to expand...
in kuran god says we have a common ancestor . the science makes the same claim as god
Click to expand...
 
Medusa said:
yobarnacle said:
There IS evidence backing your hypothesis:


in kuran god says we have a common ancestor . the science makes the same claim as god
Click to expand...



genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago.


But all of those other folks easily explain where the sons of Adam found wives! :)

Except that common male ancestor 60k or 90k years ago wouldn't be Adam!




He was Noah!


and the wives of Noah's sons carried genes not from Noah, but Eve...genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Amadeus said:
Here's what I found:
Click to expand...

That's just theory #1 and it is closely tied to the "out of africa" theory of human migration. Which again, its just a theory among many. The other 2 tell us that all homini populations who have migrated away from Africa experienced, over the course of time, a lightening of the skin. And that means that homo erectus who lived in Asia and Europe and other placed had another skin color than the one in Africa. And that also means that homo halderbengis who lived elsewhere from Africa had a different skin color. White, yellow, etc.

Which, if coupled with the theory that homo sapiens evolved separately in different regions, (so not the "out of africa" theory) means that the first homo sapiens were of all races. Black, white, yellow, red, brown, etc. Because they evolved in different areas and adapted to the specific requirements of that environment. We are a product of nature after all.
 
Rainman05 said:
That's just theory #1 and it is closely tied to the "out of africa" theory of human migration. Which again, its just a theory among many.
Click to expand...

It's the dominant theory, backed by the most evidence, and so its the one I'm using. Also, your skin colour classifications are a bit... outdated.

View attachment 67148054
 
Amadeus said:
It's the dominant theory, backed by the most evidence, and so its the one I'm using. Also, your skin colour classifications are a bit... outdated.

View attachment 67148054
Click to expand...

It is just a theory. Dominant or not. At one point the dominant theory was that the world was flat.

The reality is that different homini bones were found all over the world, therefore it makes sense to assume that they evolved independently or had a greater/smaller contribution to the modern human.
 
yobarnacle said:
In ALL seriousness.
Even if evolution was how every other life form came to be, it doesn't preclude the made of dust creation of Adam. No missing link has yet been found between man and other hominids.
At the same time, evolution isn't excluded.
The Master of the universe also created the laws of science and laws of nature. :)
It's almighty presumptuous of US, to LIMIT his abilities!
Click to expand...

The problem with 'no missing link has been found' is those who wish to think that can deflect every new discovery as not quite right... ;)

Difficult to prove the long lost vocal chords produced more than grunts, or one brain cavity produced creativity and another didn't. Or when did one ape/man actually create stone flake tools or is that pile of flakes a gathering of found flakes.

If you hold with the concept of early man created Gods to explain what he couldn't understand- thunder, disease, why one group flourished and another failed, massive earthquakes and we now 'know' those beliefs in the laws of nature are false that we too can't have false beliefs in how things are done. While some simply say God works in mysterious ways, or God saved me, Blessed me, took pity on me, answered my prayers... others may say life is a series of chances and God didn't save hundreds of other very decent folks, left many with unfulfilled prayers, struck down many an innocent child with war, disease, and famine... one might say a random fate generator is responsible for why good people die horrible deaths and others escape without a scratch.

I would say it is mighty presumptuous for us to declare things like laws of nature are in fact Divinely created as we know the earliest men worshiped 'false' Gods and created a set of laws of nature that were totally false.

More to the point it gives the supposed Law a 'out of Man's hands' superiority to other legal and ethical concepts we hold.
 
Rainman05 said:
It is just a theory. Dominant or not. At one point the dominant theory was that the world was flat.
Click to expand...

We no longer live in a world where such theories can become dominant. The theory that we all migrated from Africa cannot be dismissed so easily, and I am not sure why you are so invested on an alternative theory which carries little support.
 
I don't much buy into the whole God thing, but if I were to guess on what the Bible is hinting at, God really began to take notice of us when man became an agriculturalist--about 10K years ago, IIRC. Before then, the other big moment was when "man" became aware of life and death. This was maybe a million or two years ago--hard to say.
 
Amadeus said:
We no longer live in a world where such theories can become dominant. The theory that we all migrated from Africa cannot be dismissed so easily, and I am not sure why you are so invested on an alternative theory which carries little support.
Click to expand...

Because it makes more sense when I look at it. It doesn't have "little support". It has less support than the "out of Africa" one but it is not less support as in, a lot less evidence. Its less support among the academia. Which I don't give a hoot about. Evidence-wise, since various homini existed in various places, found all over the world, it makes sense that they evolved all over the world independently or with minimal influence from one another. At least from homo halderbengis to homo sapiens. Since homo halderbengis (i hope I write it right) was found everywhere in the euro-asia-africa supercontinent, it makes sense that the various homo sapiens races evolved independently from this common ancestor in relation to their environment. And the fact that maybe there were homo sapien migrations too in the past 200k years since our conception, just added to somewhat homogenize the species and consolidate it. But homo sapien races evolved separately for the most part.

Neanderthals are proof of this. Homo sapiens and neanderthals evolved in Europe from homo halderbengis, neanderthals were ofc less adaptable and less "good" as homo sapiens which came later on, and so, homo sapiens triumphed. Us. It is similar cases with other homini species found elsewhere too.
 
yobarnacle said:
Medusa said:
genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. But all of those other folks easily explain where the sons of Adam found wives! :) Except that common male ancestor 60k or 90k years ago wouldn't be Adam! He was Noah! and the wives of Noah's sons carried genes not from Noah, but Eve...genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, :D
Click to expand...

The Y chromosome has been traced back 338,000 years ago. (Google farthest traced Y chromosome) the pattern of dispersion and mutation lean heavily toward an 'out of Africa' origin. Mitochondrial Eve is approx 200,000 years old. because of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve we tend to think of one and only one ancestor but that is incorrect, M Eve is but the one fossil sample with recoverable DNA that was found. She was part of a gene pool that from which we come from.

By tracing the 'evolutionary tracer' DNA in both men and women the pattern of dispersion emerges especially when coupled with the study of ancient climates.
Click to expand...
 
Rainman05 said:
Because it makes more sense when I look at it. It doesn't have "little support". It has less support than the "out of Africa" one but it is not less support as in, a lot less evidence. Its less support among the academia. Which I don't give a hoot about.
Click to expand...

Those in the world of academia are the ones qualified to study it. As opposed to some guy on the Internets who uses their research to bolster an alternative theory. Obviously you find the dominant theory offensive for some reason. May I ask why?
 
Amadeus said:
Those in the world of academia are the ones qualified to study it. As opposed to some guy on the Internets who uses their research to bolster an alternative theory. Obviously you find the dominant theory offensive for some reason. May I ask why?
Click to expand...

I don't find it offensive at all. I just find it less plausible than the other one.

It's like you telling me you will you use an inductor to store charge instead of using a capacitor when building a circuit. You can use an inductor (a coil) to store charge but if your purpose is to store charge, better use a capacitor because its more suitable. This is electronics talk. The offensive part is that you use an inductor, instead of a capacitor.


When you look at the same data and come up with different conclusions, the only reasonable thing to do is to look at more data and discover more data to find out what is the correct result. So far, people look at the data and come up with more than 1 conclusion, both equally valid. The "out of africa' theory is the oldest one, thats why its the established one. the multi-development theory is the newer one.
 
Rainman05 said:
I don't find it offensive at all. I just find it less plausible than the other one.

It's like you telling me you will you use an inductor to store charge instead of using a capacitor when building a circuit. You can use an inductor (a coil) to store charge but if your purpose is to store charge, better use a capacitor because its more suitable. This is electronics talk. The offensive part is that you use an inductor, instead of a capacitor.

When you look at the same data and come up with different conclusions, the only reasonable thing to do is to look at more data and discover more data to find out what is the correct result. So far, people look at the data and come up with more than 1 conclusion, both equally valid. The "out of africa' theory is the oldest one, thats why its the established one. the multi-development theory is the newer one.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I cannot take your word for it, since you have little regard for academia where such things are discussed, researched, and debated. A newer theory is not more valid by virtue of its newness. It must withstand the scrutiny of peer reviewed research.
 
Amadeus said:
Unfortunately I cannot take your word for it, since you have little regard for academia where such things are discussed, researched, and debated. A newer theory is not more valid by virtue of its newness. It must withstand the scrutiny of peer reviewed research.
Click to expand...

It did, and it does. It's just not as popular as the out of africa theory. That's all.
 
Rainman05 said:
It did, and it does. It's just not as popular as the out of africa theory. That's all.
Click to expand...

Does it? Please cite a prominent researcher who advocates this theory. Bunk scientists have been trying since before Darwin to suggest that the races evolved differently and independently. Their motivations were not benign.
 
Amadeus said:
Does it? Please cite a prominent researcher who advocates this theory. Bunk scientists have been trying since before Darwin to suggest that the races evolved differently and independently. Their motivations were not benign.
Click to expand...

before darwin, nobody suggested evolution what so ever, at least not seriously. In fact, the common consensus was that we were made by God. Or.. you know, whatever God you worshipped and that religions' creation myth.

That's what Darwin is known for, introducing evolution over the creation theory.
 
Rainman05 said:
before darwin, nobody suggested evolution what so ever, at least not seriously. In fact, the common consensus was that we were made by God. Or.. you know, whatever God you worshipped and that religions' creation myth.

That's what Darwin is known for, introducing evolution over the creation theory.
Click to expand...

I meant 'evolve' in this context: Racist ideas | Black and white in Britain | The wider world | After Slavery | Bristol and Transatlantic Slavery | PortCities Bristol

From about 1600, with the development of science in Europe, racism could be ‘proved’ scientifically. Scientists and philosophers like David Hume could state that Africans were ‘naturally inferior to the whites’. It was widely believed that Africans and Europeans had developed separately. Many, like Sir Thomas Herbert, writing in 1634, believed that Africans must be descended from apes and were part of a separate and inferior race. This was long before Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which showed that all humans are part of the same species. In the 18th and 19th century, many white people campaigned for an end to the slave trade and for freedom for the slaves. But few of those white people believed in racial equality, that is equality between the black and white races.

In the 19th century, racist ideologies were strengthened by ‘fake’ sciences such as phrenology. It was believed that the shape of the skull reflected the character of the person. Phrenologists applied their theory to African skulls and classified all Africans as inferior to white races intellectually, culturally and morally. Phrenology showed Africans to be unsuited to work other than that supervised by white people. In the minds of most, this justified making Africans work as slaves.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
I meant 'evolve' in this context: Racist ideas | Black and white in Britain | The wider world | After Slavery | Bristol and Transatlantic Slavery | PortCities Bristol
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with evolution what so ever and certainly not with multi-development theory. We are all evolved into homo sapiens. under this theory, nobody is less than human. We are all human beings, homo sapiens.

The reason for slavery were very complex. Start with the fact that in Britain, there was no slavery. The slave trade existed purely for the colonies because it was kept that way... for instance in India, slavery had existed before the British came in and after. And when Britain, at the start of the XIXth century ended it, not 10 years later you had a revolt in India because the slave trade was abolished. The Indians in India didn't like the fact that slavery had been abolished. So was with many other places in the world. When the British established the first real colony in Africa, in South Africa to be precise in the 1850s, slavery had already been abolished. When the scramble for Africa began in the 1880s and European powers conquered all of Africa with the exception of Ethiopia, they abolished slavery everywhere they had dominion.

European nations ended slavery worldwide due to a moral and later on, economic imperative. The greatest civic liberty movement in the world was due to European powers.

And what happened after the colonial period ended?

Chad, Mauritania and Mali are nations that have reinstated slavery after they gained their independence. Under colonialism, the European powers abolished slavery and rebellions to restore the old order were dealt with.
 
Rainman05 said:
That has nothing to do with evolution what so ever and certainly not with multi-development theory. We are all evolved into homo sapiens. under this theory, nobody is less than human. We are all human beings, homo sapiens.
Click to expand...

According to your theory, we would be variants of homo sapiens, since we would have evolved independently (rather than identically). I'm trying to find a prominent person who advocates for this theory, but I can find none.
 
Amadeus said:
According to your theory, we would be variants of homo sapiens, since we would have evolved independently (rather than identically). I'm trying to find a prominent person who advocates for this theory, but I can find none.
Click to expand...

You are dodging the discussion. First you (wrongfully) brought in slavery to counter this theory, saying that it was this theory is somehow related to it before darwin... now you are discussing smth else on false premises.

The multi-development theory claims that we have all evolved into homo sapiens in different areas of the world. Not that we evolved into different homini. Look. We, homo sapiens, are the best. There is no other homini species before us that was ever as good as us. it makes sense therefore, that we all evolve along the same lines. The failed mutations that didn't, didn't make it. Like the neanderthals, they lived in Europe and parts of the Middle east. They're gone baby, no more. They were the failed mutation as it were. We were the superior one.

Look at wolves. Wolves exist everywhere in the world. they are all wolves, of different breeds. They all developed independently from one another. Gazelles too. Bears too. All animals really... evolved in different environment areas, retained their species traits and tweaked them according to their environment.
 
Amadeus said:
According to your theory, we would be variants of homo sapiens, since we would have evolved independently (rather than identically). I'm trying to find a prominent person who advocates for this theory, but I can find none.
Click to expand...

Well, I know a fellow who thinks we were DEPOSITED on this planet by some advanced alien benefactors, and racial differences are because different races evolved on DIFFERENT planets.

I don't believe a word of it, but HE does.
Is his theory important?
If it makes you giggle, and reduces stress? Then it has value in doing that! :)
 
Last edited:
Rainman05 said:
You are dodging the discussion. First you (wrongfully) brought in slavery to counter this theory, saying that it was this theory is somehow related to it before darwin... now you are discussing smth else on false premises.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging anything. I never expressed interest in debating the topic in the first place, as I am not an evolutionary biologist (or whatever field is required to engage in a meaningful discussion on the topic). You said that I was wrong and put forth an alternative theory without any academic support. Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt? You're asking an awful lot for nothing in return.

I quoted an article which delved into your position (that we evolved/developed differently). Slavery was mentioned in the piece that I cited, but it was not my argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom