Breathe
Hostis humani generis
True; there's some debate about whether it should be "homo neanderthalensis" or if they're a subgroup, so "homo sapiens neanderthalensis".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists DO believe in Natural Selection and Speciation
- Thread starter siweLSC
- Start date
True; there's some debate about whether it should be "homo neanderthalensis" or if they're a subgroup, so "homo sapiens neanderthalensis".
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Cameras don't breed or have genes.
So why not humans?
No it wouldn't; even if the Bible was right about one thing, it doesn't make it an authority on everything, or even anything. All it would be is right about something.
It doesn't mean it was literal.
Transhumanism, a religion? I wouldn't really think that.
No.
No.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
What a load of cobblers. Where have you been getting your information from? "The Way of the Master"?
Neanderthals were not ape men. They were very, very human like. They weren't hairy, lumbering brutes with low IQs.
They looked quite like us, except for being more heavy set, with thicker noses and heavier brows. They had had an average brain size that was larger than us. They had a hyoid bone so almost certainly speech, but their voices would have been vastly different due to massively different larynx. See the video below for an example:
[youtube]o589CAu73UM[/youtube]
High-pitched voice theory - Neanderthal - BBC science - YouTube
High-pitched voice theory - Neanderthal - BBC science - YouTube
There are some genuinely awesome documentaries on them which may be worth your time watching. The documentary this is an excerpt from is amazing. I was going to go on more, but I ended up starting to watch something on TV and forgot where I was going.
So you should have no reason to doubt evolution.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
They are basing their beliefs in evolution, which is a different thing than saying Darwin's Theory has something in common with religion.
About the Neanderthal thing, why don't u guys see "Quest for Fire"? It's just a movie, but I think it quite accurately represents what a Neanderthal was like
.
Last edited:
No, but my point was that a common designer can also give rise to homology.
Oh we do believe humans have a common ancestor! His name was Adam!
If the bible has got it right on history, then why shouldn't we also take it to be right on faith and morality?
What doesn't mean what was not literal?
I would!
Yes.
Yes.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
So was Adam homo habilis, or the ancestor of primates?
Simple: do you take your history books in the same way?
Troy exists, we found out. Do you take the Hellenic gods as real?
It doesn't mean the deluge myth would be literal, simply because there are many deluge myths. Something doesn't have to have happened to be written about. Did CS Lewis really open a wardrobe and find a land with talking lions? Did Lovecraft really commune with unfathomable abominations?
Adam was homo sapiens, just like us
So was Adam homo habilis, or the ancestor of primates?
My history books do not claim to be the word of God. Myths almost always have a basis in history, but they become mythology when the ancient equivalent of tabloid journalists start working on it.
Myths almost always have a basis in history, so if every culture in existance has a flood story and a creation story, that is reason to accept that there was a historical basis that the flood and the creation story happened.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
This definitely isn't true. First of all, not every culture has a flood story, and from what I've gathered it's not even close to a majority. Second of all most myths, especially creation myths, are not based in history.
Even if all cultures believed in a flood and creation, that wouldn't make it true. It's an appeal to numbers. That many people believe something doesn't make it true.
David M
Well-Known Member
Why would he need to stick with it? Why would he use that model in a way that makes every single species look like it evolved through common descent? Is God intentionally deceiving people?
You do realise that this argument requires hyper evolution at a rate never seen? Multiple species of big cat would need to have evolved in extremely short timespans (and they would need to do so without leaving evidence of the genetic bottleneck that results from starting from only 2 animals). Ancient Egyptian writings contain references to lions, leopards and cheetahs.
David M
Well-Known Member
The rickets argument made by creationists is a lie, while rickets can affect the shape of some bones it does not, for example, change the shape of the skull or affect the shape of the ribcage to any degree even remotely like that found in these fossils.
David M
Well-Known Member
That view would be out of date, now that we have Neandertal DNA it has been shown that they are a different species.
The genetic differences between a black and white person are truly minimal.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
They may be classified as different species. But that actually means nothing. Different species can not produce fertile offspring. Could neanderthal and homo sapiens produce fertile offspring? Check this out:
-H.spaiens and H.neanderthalensis have a 99.5% DNA in common.
-A study in 2006 and another one in 2010 revealed that at least a 5% of the eurasian H.Sapiens DNA comes from the hibridation with H.neanderthalensis, which means both species interbred at some point in time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Skwim
Veteran Member
Wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) among others, often interbreed and produce fertile offspring: coywolves.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
At one time there was some doubt that coywolves could reproduce successfully without subsequent generation infertility. Breeding experiments in Germany with poodles and coyotes, as well as with wolves, jackals and later on with the resulting dog-coyote hybrids showed a decrease in fertility and significant communication problems as well as an increase in genetic diseases after three generations of interbreeding between the hybrids, unlike with wolfdogs. Therefore it was concluded that domestic dogs and gray wolves are the same species and that the coyote is a separate species from both.
Coywolf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like I said, I don't know very much about creationist paleontology!
Yes, good point, the God portrayed in the bible would not go out of his way to make things look evolved.
There are some severe problems with homology as an argument for common ancestory. The most common one you will hear is that homologous structures often develop in totally different ways, so for instance, embryonic fingers can develop by a) growing a web and killing off the cells between the fingers (apoptosis) or b) budding, the fingers bud out from the hand. The finished structures look the same, but the path they took to get there is completely different.
What do you mean never before seen?
Evolution in the fast lane | New Scientist April 2, 2011
Stickleback Evolution
The common experience for breeders is that you take an animal from a mongrel (mixed) gene pool, you can breed it up and evolve it very very quickly to get it where you want it to be, but then you hit a barrier, as it were, after which you get less and less return for the amount you breed it.
Focus 31(3) (see "Do greyhounds have a speed limit, about three quarters of the way down the page)
We see the same in weat. My molecular agriculture lectuerer said that we have had 40% increase in wheat yields in the last half century, but we are not really going to get very much more increase by further breeding.
Creationists do not recognise this as evidence for Darwinian evolution, because what has happened is that you have just selectively eliminated all the unwanted genes from the gene pool, then you can get a bit of extra evolution by mutations, but these are generally destructive mutations, and then you reach a point where you are only going to get further evolution if you have constructive mutations.
Darwinian evolution requires these constructive mutations, and creationists say that genuinely constructive mutations cannot occur by small micro steps.
David M
Well-Known Member
The limited gene flow and the commonality between modern humans from outside africa shows that the interbreeding happened a long time ago, very soon after humans moved out of africa. There is nothing that supports a long period of interbreeding until Neandertals became extinct about 30,000 years ago.
And there is always the following:
So it cannot be ruled out that the interbreeding happened further back than the time when modern humans migrated out of africa.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that implies?
David M
Well-Known Member
And yet that is exactly how it looks.
But what we find is that animals that look closely related due to the pattern of all the similarities and differences use very similar methods for finger development for example.
We would be talking about multiple speciations of mammals taking place in a time frame of at most a few centuries in the wild. As Ancient Egypt is only just post flood the single pair of "large cat kind" would have had to speciate into Lions, Leopards and Cheetahs and probably also tigers and the other big cats (not sure when the oldest mention of these appear).
That is something that just has not been seen in recorded history.
Mutations are not generally destructive, the vast majority of them are neutral, the evidence of this is that every single human has about 120 mutations not possessed by either parent.
Creationists would be wrong on that count. Beneficial mutations have been observed by modern scientists.