- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 3,074
- Reaction score
- 840
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Evolution predicts that we evolved from apes. We now find a species of ape-like intermediates and their DNA showing that they are similar to humans, but are a distinct species, just more ape-like.
View attachment 67191769
Here is a facial reconstruction of a neanderthal from 3D Forensics:
View attachment 67191770
I want to go to your source. Cite it.
I've got information that says
.........there's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't understand a subject. Just don't assume your own ignorance means that all the experts in the subject are wrong too. There's nothing wrong with admitting to not being an expert in the subject either. Maybe tear a leaf from Tour hisselfThere's no evidence to macro-evolution!
Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.
When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation
Gross extrapolation. That's all it has. WOW.
alsoI simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened..........
Likewise, I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design,
Evolution predicts that we evolved from apes. We now find a species of ape-like intermediates and their DNA showing that they are similar to humans, but are a distinct species, just more ape-like.
View attachment 67191769
Here is a facial reconstruction of a neanderthal from 3D Forensics:
View attachment 67191770
Source for what? The 3D reconstruction? The Skull?
The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed.
The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.
However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.
The technique is new and radical, and hopefully this measurement will be followed by others, which will give more insight and confidence. It would also be helpful to investigate Cro-Magnon bones of the same suspected date. This is breakthrough technology and both creationists and evolutionists would like to learn more.
From a creationist perspective, the Neanderthals were descendants of Noah—a language group that migrated away from Babel and found themselves in harsh "Ice Age" conditions with a meager lifestyle. Linguistic and geographic isolation may have produced a variant, but still human, genome.
Whether they went extinct or interbred with others is not yet known, but from what we do know, they were as human as you and I.
Is Neanderthal In Our Family Tree? | The Institute for Creation Research
The reconstruction looks very human!
Check this out. You saying these guys with prominent cranial brows are neanderthal?
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...r2=sb-top-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004
The first guy that came to mind when I saw the reconstruction was, Lou Ferigno!
Anyway, if we have differing skin colors and other physical characteristics (depending on race).....why would it be any different with a neanderthal just because he's got differing cranial and skeletal characteristics?
First off, we have found hundreds of neanderthals. DNA degrades so we were only able to recover a small part of the Neanderthal DNA, thankfully we have done this with several individuals.
The comparison is done by comparing hundreds of humans together. We then compare each of these humans to the Neanderthal DNA. Since we are comparing the Neanderthal DNA to hundreds of humans this makes it far less likely that the Neanderthal happened to be more different from one human by chance. We have done this genetic analysis with multiple Neanderthals and have found the same results.
As of 2008, this analysis has been done to 18 neanderthal sequences. Some studies have even compared the Neanderthals together and then compared them to humans and found that the Neanderthals were genetically close, the humans were grouped together, and the humans and neanderthals are separate.
Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA
That creationist article pretends that this was done to only one Neanderthal, also all these Neanderthals differ from humans far more than even the farthest human outliers differ from each other.
So Neanderthals are just humans with more pronounced facial characteristics? Aborigines have very pronounced facial characteristics, yet the are human. Why not neanderthals?
View attachment 67191772
Here is a aborigines vs. normal human skull:
View attachment 67191773
Here is a human vs. neanderthal skull:
View attachment 67191774
As you can tell the Neanderthal skull is very unique even when we compare with aboriginese.
Well.....more than half of those neanderthals were burials!
The Neandertal fossil evidence shows that the Neandertal practice is in complete accord with the Genesis record. At least 345 Neandertal fossil individuals have been discovered so far at 83 sites in Europe, the Near East, and western Asia. Of these 345 Neandertal individuals, 183 of them (53 per cent) represent burials—all of them burials in caves or rock shelters. Further, it is obvious that caves were used as family burial grounds or cemeteries, as the following sites show:
Krapina Rock Shelter, Croatia—75 (minimum) Neandertals buried.
Arcy-sur-Cure caves, France—26 Neandertals buried.
Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—21 Neandertals buried.
Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel—12 Neandertals buried.
La Freesia Rock Shelter, France—8 Neandertals buried.
Shanidar Cave, Iraq—7 Neandertals buried.
Maude Cave, Galilee, Israel—7 Neandertals buried.
Gutter Cave, Monte Circa, Italy—4 Neandertals buried.
Tsar 'Ail Rock Shelter, Lebanon—3 Neandertals buried.
It is understandable why burial in caves was common in ancient times. Graves in open areas must be marked so that future generations can return to pay homage to their ancestors. However, grave markers or reference points can be changed, destroyed, or moved. Directions to the grave site can become confusing over time. Landscapes can change, and memories of certain features can become clouded. Just as Abraham did not always live in one place, so the Neandertals may have moved seasonally following herds of game. Since caves are usually permanent, it would have been easy to locate the family burial site if it were in a cave. One could be sure that he was at the very spot where his ancestors were buried.
Most anthropologists recognize burial as a very human, and a very religious act. But the strongest evidence that Neandertals were fully human and of our species is that at four sites Neandertals and modern humans were buried together. In all of life, few desires are stronger than the desire to be buried with one’s own people. Jacob lived in Egypt, but wanted to be buried in the family cemetery in the cave of Machpelah. Joseph achieved fame in Egypt, but wanted his bones to be taken back to Israel (Genesis 50:25, Exodus 13:19, Joshua 24:32). Until recently it was the custom to have a cemetery next to the church so that the church family could be buried together. For centuries, many cities had separate cemeteries for Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews so that people could be buried with their own kind.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-genome/recovery-of-neandertal-mtdna-an-evaluation/
'The Institute for Creation Research'?
(since this is the 'Religion' section, can't really say any more/deservant)
Darwin was a ****ing nutjob and loon.
Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health | The Institute for Creation Research
Well I can quote ICR for one:Well you could always review the references, just a thought.
What can one say in answer to Premise-based research and foregone conclusions.http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research said:ICR’s Approach to Scientific Investigation
The Institute for Creation Research is Unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a Biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.
All origins research must begin with a Premise. ICR holds that the Biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is Factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in Six Literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust.
It is within this Framework that ICR research is conducted...
Well I can quote ICR for one:
What can one say in answer to that... NON-scientific ADMISSION.
OTOH, Darwin lead an incredibly full personal and Intellectual life. 10 Kids, Lots of Travel, app 50 incredible publications in his 50 adult (of 73 years).
Please check the Wiki Entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
and bibliography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin_bibliography
So what? And here, I just found that this support my previous question: why would a neanderthal be any different from any humans just because he's got differing carnial or skeletal structures? Did you see the photos of two African tribesmen?
Darwin was a ****ing nutjob and loon.
Was Charles Darwin Psychotic? A Study of His Mental Health | The Institute for Creation Research
The problem with the analogy of the tribesman is that these are only a few individuals why have very a-typical skulls. In the case of neanderthals, there are hundreds of individuals who all have atypical skills in the same way. There is a difference between rare differences and a whole population that is on average very different.
Some tribes may vary differently from normal humans but I showed that this difference is much smaller than that between neanderthals and humans.
Also, these tribesmen do not have DNA that is far outside human genetic diversity. You never refuted my genetic claims.
Neanderthal brains have a different shape than normal human brains and we know this by looking at the insides of their skulls. The way that your brain is constructed is very important because different regions different parts of your intellect.
In fact neanderthal brains are about as large as human brains at 1473 cubic centemeters, but their structure is very different. Neanderthal brains have much larger areas of the brain devoted to body control and vision and less area devoted to social interaction and complex cognition. If you factor out the areas for vision and body control, the ratio of the human brain to neanderthal brain is about 1300 ccs to 1100 ccs on average which is a big difference. This is strong evidence for large mental differences between our species as a whole. Their brains were structured differently with a larger ratio going to non-intellectual things.
Neanderthal brain focussed on vision and movement | University of Oxford
Science Shows Why You’re Smarter Than a Neanderthal | Science | Smithsonian
hmm you go to all that trouble to prove why they are different even down to the minute measurements.
now go look up the difference between human dna and monkey's and you will see that we are no where closely related to each other by
the same genetic standards.
they use to say 98% now it is down to 95% and while some would look at that and go there is proof of evolution.
I would say otherwise.
this means that there are 150m DNA base pair differences between the two of them.
now we are talking a whole different ball game.
if you want to follow this logic further we share about 40% of our dna with a banana, so I guess that means at one point in time
we have an ancient ancestor that was a banana and decided it wanted to start eating banana's instead of being one.
hmm you go to all that trouble to prove why they are different even down to the minute measurements.
now go look up the difference between human dna and monkey's and you will see that we are no where closely related to each other by
the same genetic standards.
they use to say 98% now it is down to 95% and while some would look at that and go there is proof of evolution.
I would say otherwise.
this means that there are 150m DNA base pair differences between the two of them.
now we are talking a whole different ball game.
if you want to follow this logic further we share about 40% of our dna with a banana, so I guess that means at one point in time
we have an ancient ancestor that was a banana and decided it wanted to start eating banana's instead of being one.
I agree, but he created a religion all his own that allowed for the disallowance of God.
that was the main reason for it.
He was a Christian. He was troubled by the "disallowance of God" factor to the point of sitting on his theory for more than a decade before publishing in a rush because others had come to very similar conclusions.
So Neanderthals are just humans with more pronounced facial characteristics? Aborigines have very pronounced facial characteristics, yet the are human. Why not neanderthals?
View attachment 67191772
Here is a aborigines vs. normal human skull:
View attachment 67191773
Here is a human vs. neanderthal skull:
View attachment 67191774
As you can tell the Neanderthal skull is very unique even when we compare with aboriginese.
Moderator's Warning: |
![]() |