Evolutionists, where, geographically, did man evolve?

[dust1n]

"The multiregional hypothesis, multiregional evolution (MRE), or polycentric theory is a scientific model that provides an alternative explanation to the more widely accepted "Out of Africa" model for the pattern of human evolution.

Multiregional evolution holds that the human species first arose around two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses all archaic human forms such as H. erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens. The theory contends that the mechanism of clinal variation through a model of "Centre and Edge" allowed for the necessary balance between genetic drift, gene flow and selection throughout the Pleistocene, as well as overall evolution as a global species, but while retaining regional differences in certain morphological features.[1] Proponents of multiregionalism point to fossil and genomic data and continuity of archaeological cultures as support for their hypothesis."

Multiregional origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FearGod]

I don't know anyone who believes humans were created by stones. Who are you talking about?

And what is nature to you other than an unconscious matter (an Inanimate being)

 

[dust1n]

Multiregional is what I'm questioning. I'm wondering how that is possible. same mammalian forebears? It seems unlikely.

I haven't looked into poly-centrism enough to form an opinion about it. But it wouldn't be unheard of:

"Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function, but that were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.[1] The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy, from Greek for same form.[2] Therecurrent evolution of flight is a classic example of convergent evolution. Flying insects, birds, and bats have all evolved the capacity of flight independently. They have "converged" on this useful trait."

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Parsimony]

And what is nature to you other than an unconscious matter (an Inanimate being)

It's a whole lot more than a stone, that's for sure.

 

[FearGod]

It's a whole lot more than a stone, that's for sure.

Does it differ ?

 

[Desert Snake]

I haven't looked into poly-centrism enough to form an opinion about it. But it wouldn't be unheard of:

"Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function, but that were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups.[1] The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy, from Greek for same form.[2] Therecurrent evolution of flight is a classic example of convergent evolution. Flying insects, birds, and bats have all evolved the capacity of flight independently. They have "converged" on this useful trait."

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see. It just seems a tad unlikely to me, considering the variables that could have presented themselves to our current understanding of human populations. We are pretty similar, with slight differences/
That being said, it's not like this is totally clear cut, imo.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know anyone who believes humans were created by stones. Who are you talking about?

It's an argument Ken Hovind used in his Gish-gallop arguments. He claimed that "evolutionists" believe humans came from rocks. Strange that he kept on forgetting that Genesis says that we come from dust. Somehow he thinks dust is better than rocks?

 

[Parsimony]

Does it differ ?

Stones don't perform nuclear fusion, run the water cycle, create lightning, etc., so conflating nature as a whole with an "inanimate stone" is definitely a straw-man.

 

[dust1n]

It's an argument Ken Hovind used in his Gish-gallop arguments. He claimed that "evolutionists" believe humans came from rocks. Strange that he kept on forgetting that Genesis says that we come from dust. Somehow he thinks dust is better than rocks?

Look, it's ridiculous that people think living things came from rocks. Everyone knows God has to grind those rocks into dust or clay first, then make people from those.

 

[dust1n]

I see. It just seems a tad unlikely to me, considering the variables that could have presented themselves to our current understanding of human populations. We are pretty similar, with slight differences/
That being said, it's not like this is totally clear cut, imo.

I think the multiregional origin's meaning gets lost, the distinction made on the Wiki is as such:

"The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100–200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50–60,000 years ago to replace existing human species such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals with limited interbreeding: at least once with Neanderthals and once with Denisovans.[112][113][114][115][116] This differs from the multiregional hypothesis in that the multiregional model predicts interbreeding with local human populations in any such migration.[114]"

 

[Ouroboros]

Look, it's ridiculous that people think living things came from rocks. Everyone knows God has to grind those rocks into dust or clay first, then make people from those.

Exactly. It's obvious, right? It shows why Genesis must be right, because all the components for life is in rocks crushed to dust, but not in rocks not yet crushed into dust. Any genesisologist would know that much.

 

[dust1n]

Exactly. It's obvious, right? It shows why Genesis must be right, because all the components for life is in rocks crushed to dust, but not in rocks not yet crushed into dust. Any genesisologist would know that much.

My question is, why would God need to use anything to make anything from it in the first place?

"The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body. He made it from the dust of the ground. Then he breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person...."

Are those really necessary actions for God to make humans? If he made us from the dust of the ground (plus 1 rib, if you want to make a uterus I guess), what did he make the dust on the ground from? And what did he make that from? And what did he make that from?

Why did Jesus turn water into wine? Couldn't he just make wine, and keep the water too to help with the hangovers?

 

[averageJOE]

Sigh...
The OP asks a question using the word "evolutionist".
Then it gets answered repeatedly in detail.
Then gets a response of " that's unlikely...IMO".

Obviously this thread is on a fast track to nowhere.

 

[Ouroboros]

My question is, why would God need to use anything to make anything from it in the first place?

"The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body. He made it from the dust of the ground. Then he breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person...."

Are those really necessary actions for God to make humans? If he made us from the dust of the ground (plus 1 rib, if you want to make a uterus I guess), what did he make the dust on the ground from? And what did he make that from? And what did he make that from?

So true. Why not *poof* Adam into existence like he did with the universe? God swishing and swoshing his wand and saying, "Let there be Adam", and lo and behold, there was an Adam.

Why did Jesus turn water into wine? Couldn't he just make wine, and keep the water too to help with the hangovers?

Hangover resistant wine. Nice. That's how you do miracles.

 

[Ouroboros]

Obviously this thread is on a fast track to nowhere.

It was already from the start.

 

[dust1n]

So true. Why not *poof* Adam into existence like he did with the universe? God swishing and swoshing his wand and saying, "Let there be Adam", and lo and behold, there was an Adam.

Exactly. Not exactly one of the more poetic parts of the Bible. Although the Qur'an's account is technically a poem, so the same can't be said there.

Hangover resistant wine. Nice. That's how you do miracles.

I'm not even omniscient and I could see where that one was going.

 

[FearGod]

Stones don't perform nuclear fusion, run the water cycle, create lightning, etc., so conflating nature as a whole with an "inanimate stone" is definitely a straw-man.

And what nuclear fusion has to do with the creation of man or even an ant ?

 

[FearGod]

Look, it's ridiculous that people think living things came from rocks. Everyone knows God has to grind those rocks into dust or clay first, then make people from those.

No need for God, the unconscious nature were great in doing it unintentionally.

 

[FearGod]

My question is, why would God need to use anything to make anything from it in the first place?

"The time came when the Lord God formed a man's body. He made it from the dust of the ground. Then he breathed into it the breath of life. And man became a living person...."

Are those really necessary actions for God to make humans? If he made us from the dust of the ground (plus 1 rib, if you want to make a uterus I guess), what did he make the dust on the ground from? And what did he make that from? And what did he make that from?

Why did Jesus turn water into wine? Couldn't he just make wine, and keep the water too to help with the hangovers?

Yes God should create man out of nothing, exactly similar to the universe, there was nothing then suddenly something came to existence that banged, no need for something to start with.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sigh...
The OP asks a question using the word "evolutionist".
Then it gets answered repeatedly in detail.
Then gets a response of " that's unlikely...IMO".

Obviously this thread is on a fast track to nowhere.

Begs the question of why you are responding in the thread, dontcha' think?