When did we become human?

[iguanaman]

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!

If you don't believe we were "deposited" on this planet then you believe we are "related' to all other animals here. How is it that we are the only ones to have "eternal life" then? Or do you believe dogs go to heaven?

 

[Rainman05]

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.

Yes, but slavery was based on a different idea. To say that the various human races evolved into different "homini". Some superior (white) and some inferior (everyone else) if you look at the way it was presented in Europe. In Asia, you have Chinesse superiority. In Africa you had Zulu superiority. in Japan, you had superiority of japs there.

The multi-development theory says that the homo sapiens, us, all of us, all races, evolved from the homo halderbengis in different areas of the world.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

This discussion is for theists who do not deny the Theory of Evolution. Young-Earth-Creationists have no point to make in this thread. It would be like asking a pacifist which war was their favorite.

Given that homo sapiens is also the result of biological evolution, at what point did we become "human" and wake up to know God? How long before Abraham and Moses was it that we developed the ability for speech and communication (so God could talk to us)?

This question is more geared to members of the Abrahamic religions than theists, in general. Nevertheless, I'll answer it as a non-religious theist. I don't believe that the point at which we "became" human relative God is distinct from the point we "became" human in terms of evolution. Through evolution, our species developed and, over time, we developed an idea of divinity. Since then, human beings have imagined divinity in a variety of ways and I believe that each way is simply how each group has experience God in their particular environments.

 

[yobarnacle]

If you don't believe we were "deposited" on this planet then you believe we are "related' to all other animals here. How is it that we are the only ones to have "eternal life" then? Or do you believe dogs go to heaven?

"God will have mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom. 9:18).

If God wants dogs and amoebas in heaven, He's the Master. Incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, animals , like children, are innocent of sin.

I'm concerned for the souls of men. I'll let the Jesuits preach to birds and animals!

 

[Amadeus]

The multi-development theory says that the homo sapiens, us, all of us, all races, evolved from the homo halderbengis in different areas of the world.

It was difficult to track down, but the theory in question is called the 'Multiregional Theory': Multiregional origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary proponent of this theory is Milford H. Wolpoff, who is a respected paleoanthropologist and professor of anthropology.

I speed-read through it, and the theory has scientific support, but it is definitely a minority opinion. It does a disservice to Milford and others in the field to say that the prominent theory (African migration) is only believed because it is older.

 

[yobarnacle]

This question is more geared to members of the Abrahamic religions than theists, in general. Nevertheless, I'll answer it as a non-religious theist. I don't believe that the point at which we "became" human relative God is distinct from the point we "became" human in terms of evolution. Through evolution, our species developed and, over time, we developed an idea of divinity. Since then, human beings have imagined divinity in a variety of ways and I believe that each way is simply how each group has experience God in their particular environments.

One of the "proofs" of God's existence is, we are "hard wired" to seek Him. And He seeks us! Ain't Love GRAND!

 

[Knowledge=power]

One of the "proofs" of God's existence is, we are "hard wired" to seek Him. And He seeks us! Ain't Love GRAND!

Can't tell if sarcasm....

or brainwashed

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

One of the "proofs" of God's existence is, we are "hard wired" to seek Him. And He seeks us! Ain't Love GRAND!

We are "hard wired" to commit Type I errors, which makes us assume agents exist where they do not and are responsible for actions they did not commit. We are hard wired to seek meaning.

This is why lightning used to mean that Zeus was angry.

 

[American]

Genesis 1:25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
[26]
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

So what do we see about all the creatures that came along? They came according to their kind. But man was made in his image.

Kind (Heb miyn) - kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

Image (Heb tselem) - image images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)
image, likeness (of resemblance)
mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)

So God did something different here.

 

[Harlan]

We individually come into being when the sperm unites with the egg. We go through many stages of development for 9 months before we're born. In the same way, humanity has gone through stages of development for eons. At one point there were no mammals on the earth and our ancestors at that point were not mammals, but probably reptile-like. And as you go further back in time, there were no reptiles yet, and so those human ancestors did not even resemble reptiles. So whether as individuals or as a species, we have gone through progressive stages of growth to end up as we are today. I would call us human at any of those stages. I don't see how you can draw a line and say that one day we're not human and the next we are.

 

[mbig]

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!

That's False.
There are many "missing Links"/Intermediate species between man and ape.
In fact, intermediate species between all extant and even extinct creatures.

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

No "missing Link"? there are a dozen+, and more being found periodically as Science/evolution would predict.
Which were 'gods image'? Adam and Eve?
As someone mentioned, Neanderthals buried their dead had some sense of 'soul' but were not Homo Sapiens. Who 'created' them?
Why did he take so long to get it right and let all the intermediate models go blewey.

Originally Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | now Yoism

"...For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence."...

The briefer Sciam graphic simple for anyone to fathom. Sapiens didn't just drop outa nowhere; it wasn't a radical new design.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Don't forget, whales also have hip bones. Probably because they were poofed into existence by an almighty creator as an example of perfect design.

 

[csbrown28]

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

You've demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the common term theory and when the term theory is used in science. Theories in science are the highest orders of knowledge. There was never a "flat earth theory" in a scientific sense...

 

[Rainman05]

You've demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the common term theory and when the term theory is used in science. Theories in science are the highest orders of knowledge. There was never a "flat earth theory" in a scientific sense...

This proves you are trying to blow smoke up my arse. Stop trying, it's air tight.

Now. You better read everything I wrote, get a grip, and accept it as the truth because it is so. I am wrong on no count.

 

[German guy]

This discussion is for theists who do not deny the Theory of Evolution. Young-Earth-Creationists have no point to make in this thread. It would be like asking a pacifist which war was their favorite.

Given that homo sapiens is also the result of biological evolution, at what point did we become "human" and wake up to know God? How long before Abraham and Moses was it that we developed the ability for speech and communication (so God could talk to us)?

I believe with Adam, but Adam was not a historical figure, but a symbol for the first, conscious man. My religion does not specify that point exactly, as far as I know, but it is mentioned that there were divine prophets even before Adam, whom we don't remember anymore.

In another part of the scripture, it's written that even the precursors of man were not simple animals, but special. I understand that meaning that their potential for sentient, conscious beings was in them already, much like the plant is in the seed already.

Sorry, but I can't give you a more specific answer. I don't know better.

 

[German guy]

As someone mentioned, Neanderthals buried their dead had some sense of 'soul' but were not Homo Sapiens. Who 'created' them?
Why did he take so long to get it right and let all the intermediate models go blewey.

Just on a side note ... my fiancée, who's studying archeology, told me that the most recent studies came to the conclusion that Neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens. So all of today's humans most likely have some Neanderthal genes too.

The first reaction, is, of course: You didn't need to tell me that. I knew it already by looking at all the people in the bus.

 

[csbrown28]

This proves you are trying to blow smoke up my arse. Stop trying, it's air tight.

Now. You better read everything I wrote, get a grip, and accept it as the truth because it is so. I am wrong on no count.

Except that you don't know what the term theory means in a scientific sense. That and your coming off as a tad arrogant...

 

[Rainman05]

Except that you don't know what the term theory means in a scientific sense. That and your coming off as a tad arrogant...

I do in fact. I also know the difference between proven theory and just theory. You don't.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Just on a side note ... my fiancée, who's studying archeology, told me that the most recent studies came to the conclusion that Neanderthals interbred with homo sapiens. So all of today's humans most likely have some Neanderthal genes too.

The first reaction, is, of course: You didn't need to tell me that. I knew it already by looking at all the people in the bus.

Good site on Neanderthals in North America you may find interesting. Cave men in the America's is kind of a hobby interest of mine.


AMERICAN NEANDERTHAL: Latest evidence from the Western Hemisphere.

 

[csbrown28]

I do in fact. I also know the difference between proven theory and just theory. You don't.

And yet we have this little nugget....

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

So if you're correct you should be able to show me in the scientific literature "flat earth theory".

If ya can't you either don't know the difference or you were deliberately conflating terms in order to be misleading.

Or maybe you realize your wrong and your piss poor attitude is just your way to troll....

-Cheers

 

[Rainman05]

And yet we have this little nugget....

So if you're correct you should be able to show me in the scientific literature "flat earth theory".

If ya can't you either don't know the difference or you were deliberately conflating terms in order to be misleading.

Or maybe you realize your wrong and your piss poor attitude is just your way to troll....

-Cheers

Dominant theory means that it is just most acceptable, the more... recognized one. The more popular one. Out of Africa is the Miss Universe of human migration and evolution theories. It doesn't however, pass the stage of a theory. Just like the multiregional development one.

I wasn't misleading at all. I just didn't think I would encounter anyone so silly as to question the use of the word "theory". Also, nobody who would be so silly as to ask for scientific literature about flat earth theory.

Electromagnetism is a proven theory. Why? Because the experimentation proves that theory to be true. Out of Africa is just a theory. Tell me, how do you plan to prove it to be true? Replicate the human migration and evolution please. Go on. I have all eternity to wait for.

The bottom line is, you tried to be a smartass and got your ass handed to you. Live with it.

 

[notquiteright]

Dominant theory means that it is just most acceptable, the more... recognized one. The more popular one. Out of Africa is the Miss Universe of human migration and evolution theories. It doesn't however, pass the stage of a theory. Just like the multiregional development one. I wasn't misleading at all. I just didn't think I would encounter anyone so silly as to question the use of the word "theory". Also, nobody who would be so silly as to ask for scientific literature about flat earth theory. Electromagnetism is a proven theory. Why? Because the experimentation proves that theory to be true. Out of Africa is just a theory. Tell me, how do you plan to prove it to be true? Replicate the human migration and evolution please. Go on. I have all eternity to wait for. The bottom line is, you tried to be a smartass and got your ass handed to you. Live with it.

Well gravity is just a theory though if you stand just outside a 5 story building I can demonstrate it is provable and yet a theory it remains.

Out of Africa is strengthened by recent advances in DNA coding. Tracing both mitochondria DNA and the Y chromosome alleles the trend is to say we all started in Africa but once arriving in certain regions mutations occurred.

You don't have to re-invent the human migration and evolutionary wheel, you just have to follow the tire tracks...

 

[Rainman05]

Well gravity is just a theory though if you stand just outside a 5 story building I can demonstrate it is provable and yet a theory it remains.

Out of Africa is strengthened by recent advances in DNA coding. Tracing both mitochondria DNA and the Y chromosome alleles the trend is to say we all started in Africa but once arriving in certain regions mutations occurred.

You don't have to re-invent the human migration and evolutionary wheel, you just have to follow the tire tracks...

Again, gravity is a proven theory. Proven in practice.

Out of Africa is just a theory. Unproven and so far, it seems it is unprovable. The DNA tracing doesn't mean that we all have a common place where we migrated from, it just means we have a common ancestor.. .or a common ancestry, and that is true.

 

[notquiteright]

Again, gravity is a proven theory. Proven in practice.

Out of Africa is just a theory. Unproven and so far, it seems it is unprovable. The DNA tracing doesn't mean that we all have a common place where we migrated from, it just means we have a common ancestor.. .or a common ancestry, and that is true.

I have trouble following your 'logic'. In as much as the DNA has traced us back in time and place to an era where travel was by foot and 'migration' was more a case a tribe becoming too big and splitting, one group moving farther into the 'unknown' and the hunter gatherers needing to move every few years as food was stripped from the area ... it means there is a common ancestor genetic pool- we all came from one area and as the tribes moved with game/food/ climate the various mutations occurred.

DNA advances have strengthened the Out of Africa theory and greatly weakened human evolving in other areas separate of the African gene pool. The biggest proponents of Other Than Africa ideas come from China where a myth of difference has flourished since before there was a China...

 

[Rainman05]

I have trouble following your 'logic'. In as much as the DNA has traced us back in time and place to an era where travel was by foot and 'migration' was more a case a tribe becoming too big and splitting, one group moving farther into the 'unknown' and the hunter gatherers needing to move every few years as food was stripped from the area ... it means there is a common ancestor genetic pool- we all came from one area and as the tribes moved with game/food/ climate the various mutations occurred.

DNA advances have strengthened the Out of Africa theory and greatly weakened human evolving in other areas separate of the African gene pool. The biggest proponents of Other Than Africa ideas come from China where a myth of difference has flourished since before there was a China...

He he, that's not really the case now is it. the whole DNA thing proves just that we are a homo sapiens and we all have a common ancesntry. it doesn't mean that we all evolved from Africans. We all have 99.8% shared DNA but that doesn't mean we are all 99.8% africans, it means we are all 99.8% of the same species, and the 0.2% makes up our race.

There is no way to trace back DNA as it were. To see when some mutation occured. It could have occured 1000 years ago, 10k years ago, or 200k years ago as we all evolved in different areas of the world into homo sapiens, replacing our ancestors. That is the common ancestor, homo heidelbergensis. We do not know how much DNA we have in common, homo sapiens, with homo heidelbergensis. Because again, we can't backtrack DNA. We know Europeans and some Asians have up to 4% of the different DNA make-up from other races from neanderthals because we can see that by comparing modern day races, and hence, by connecting the dots, we draw a logical conclusion. There is no way to prove it 100% but it is sufficiently logical to pass mustard. Something out of africa theory isn't.

So DNA in fact only serves to promote multiregional development, not to deny it