Evolutionists, where, geographically, did man evolve?

[Parsimony]

No life can exist in the extremely hot universe during the Planck Epoch, so from the start our universe is dead and has no life.
How life born from the dead ?

No one has figured that out yet.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No one has figured that out yet.

We're really quite close though... We know most of the building blocks were formed and we know how chemistry works after that. It's not like it's some indecipherable code.

 

[FearGod]

How we define life is controversial. Lists of essential features keep getting redefined. Structures/organisms with certain lifelike features, but without the full compliment keep getting discovered. Quarter life, half life -- where do you drew the line?
But the fact is, we do have aardvarks and oak trees, which no-one disputes, and few dispute the fact that Earth was once without life. So the only question is: did life come about through natural, chemical means, or through magical intervention?
Which is more plausible?

Through a designed plan for the natural processes.

If it involves altering the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry, it's magic. If you're arguing "Goddidit," you're arguing magic.

Planned and guided it, where is the magic ?

 

[Parsimony]

We're really quite close though... We know most of the building blocks were formed and we know how chemistry works after that. It's not like it's some indecipherable code.

Yes, that's true. There are still some pieces missing, but I think we'll get there eventually. I'll be quite excited if scientists manage to successfully replicate natural abiogenesis within my lifetime.

 

[David M]

So, you are talking about some back migration into Europe, then. I have to conclude that, if we are even going to use the word ''europe''. why is there variation in Europe, to that extent?

The evidence points to multiple migrations by various species of the Homo genus, some of those species persisted across large areas for a long period of time such as H. erectus which started in Africa and spread out over a huge range of Europe and Asia and beyond. Other species evolved after migrations such as the Neanderthals who evolved in Eurasia and were present in parts of the middle east so would have had contact with H. sapiens before the final wave of modern humans left Africa. Over the whole period there would have been migrations, or at least gene flow, back and forth but without DNA from a lot of specimens it would be hard to precisely determine the when and the where.

That is why I don't feel that enough is known to pin down any interaction between Neanderthals and Humans that gives us that 2-4% figure for shared DNA . While its possible that the interbreeding took place late its just as possible that it took place much earlier and on the borders of Africa and its just that the population that was produced did not have much gene flow with the groups that moved south across Africa, that would explain the results as well.

So the only migrations that we have good data would be for ones that produced our current human populations, that data shows that we are all descended from a more recent migration than the ones that resulted in some of the older H. sapiens finds outside Africa.

 

[McBell]

Planned and guided it, where is the magic ?

So, how did god create life if without magic?
And if god can poof life without magic, why can't life appear without magic?

You do not seem to understand you are killing your own argument.

 

[metis]

And it begs the question as to shy there supposedly was so many miracles during biblical times and yet we really do not see any today that can be confirmed as true "miracles"?

 

[Desert Snake]

The evidence points to multiple migrations by various species of the Homo genus, some of those species persisted across large areas for a long period of time such as H. erectus which started in Africa and spread out over a huge range of Europe and Asia and beyond. Other species evolved after migrations such as the Neanderthals who evolved in Eurasia and were present in parts of the middle east so would have had contact with H. sapiens before the final wave of modern humans left Africa. Over the whole period there would have been migrations, or at least gene flow, back and forth but without DNA from a lot of specimens it would be hard to precisely determine the when and the where.

That is why I don't feel that enough is known to pin down any interaction between Neanderthals and Humans that gives us that 2-4% figure for shared DNA . While its possible that the interbreeding took place late its just as possible that it took place much earlier and on the borders of Africa and its just that the population that was produced did not have much gene flow with the groups that moved south across Africa, that would explain the results as well.

So the only migrations that we have good data would be for ones that produced our current human populations, that data shows that we are all descended from a more recent migration than the ones that resulted in some of the older H. sapiens finds outside Africa.

Hmm.

 

[David M]

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.

Its very unlikely, modern humans have an exceptionally low level of genetic variation compare to most other species (due to the known bottleneck in the recent past), the chances of what we see being the result of convergent evolution from a number of earlier species are vanishingly small and certainly do not account for the complete lack of reproductive barriers between populations.

 

[David M]

Glass is made by humans and not by nature.

Except for naturally occurring glass such as obsidians, fulgarites and tektites of course, which is made by nature.

All that humans have done is scale up the process and reduce the levels of impurities.

 

[Desert Snake]

Its very unlikely, modern humans have an exceptionally low level of genetic variation compare to most other species (due to the known bottleneck in the recent past), the chances of what we see being the result of convergent evolution from a number of earlier species are vanishingly small and certainly do not account for the complete lack of reproductive barriers between populations.

It's definitely an interesting subject.

 

[metis]

Its very unlikely, modern humans have an exceptionally low level of genetic variation compare to most other species (due to the known bottleneck in the recent past), the chances of what we see being the result of convergent evolution from a number of earlier species are vanishingly small and certainly do not account for the complete lack of reproductive barriers between populations.

Not only the bottleneck but also our increasingly greater ability to kill each other, or so it appears.

 

[David M]

Not only the bottleneck but also our increasingly greater ability to kill each other, or so it appears.

In my opinion I really don't think it is much of a factor, looking at all such instances we know about these form mere blips when compared to the global populations at the time, natural factors such as disease and large scale events such as ice ages or very major eruptions tend to have far more serious consequences.

 

[metis]

In my opinion I really don't think it is much of a factor, looking at all such instances we know about these form mere blips when compared to the global populations at the time, natural factors such as disease and large scale events such as ice ages or very major eruptions tend to have far more serious consequences.

I'm gonna hafta disagree with you on this based on the near extermination of Neanderthals, whereas the most recent research indicates that only a small fraction of today's population has inherited even some of their genes. But there's also the issue of people simply out-competing other groups for food and other resources. If we go back 1+ million years ago, we see several varieties of human groups in existence that are really quite different from each other, but at that time the tool cultures probably were not sophisticated enough to wipe out entire populations.

 

[David M]

I'm gonna hafta disagree with you on this based on the near extermination of Neanderthals, whereas the most recent research indicates that only a small fraction of today's population has inherited even some of their genes. But there's also the issue of people simply out-competing other groups for food and other resources. If we go back 1+ million years ago, we see several varieties of human groups in existence that are really quite different from each other, but at that time the tool cultures probably were not sophisticated enough to wipe out entire populations.

That small fraction could just as much arise from limited reproductive compatabillity due to the time separation between the ancestor or simple geographic separation if the interbreeding was early, in later periods there just may not have been any interbreeding. There is certainly not enough evidence to establish that direct violence was significant, environmental changes and competition for food just as well explains the tens of thousands of years where both species co-existed with one species eventually supplanting the other.

Low populations could also be a factor, whatever event caused the bottleneck in human populations could very well have caused a similar issue for Neanderthals as they occupied very similar environmental niches.

 

[metis]

That small fraction could just as much arise from limited reproductive compatabillity due to the time separation between the ancestor or simple geographic separation if the interbreeding was early, in later periods there just may not have been any interbreeding. There is certainly not enough evidence to establish that direct violence was significant, environmental changes and competition for food just as well explains the tens of thousands of years where both species co-existed with one species eventually supplanting the other.

Low populations could also be a factor, whatever event caused the bottleneck in human populations could very well have caused a similar issue for Neanderthals as they occupied very similar environmental niches.

There are numerous sites found whereas Hsn and Hss fought, and what you write above doesn't even get close to dealing with why the vast majority of Neanderthals went extinct. We're not dealing with a small group here as the number of Neanderthal fossils found is quite significant, and the fact that there was so little intermarriage simply does not explain why they were largely wiped out.

But whatever...

 

[David M]

There are numerous sites found whereas Hsn and Hss fought...

Source?

 

[metis]

Source?

Many. I taught anthropology for 30 years and have subscribed to Scientific American for some 50 years now, the latter of which has had many articles that deal with both Neanderthals and what eventually happened to them. You might check out some past copies of the magazine. Also, you might even check out Wikipedia on "Neanderthal".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

did life come about through natural, chemical means, or through magical intervention?
Which is more plausible?

Did this software magically write itself or was it written on purpose? which is more plausible?

 

[David M]

Many. I taught anthropology for 30 years and have subscribed to Scientific American for some 50 years now, the latter of which has had many articles that deal with both Neanderthals and what eventually happened to them. You might even check out Wikipedia on "Neanderthal".

Just did, it does not mention any such conflict sites. In fact the prevailing theories mentioned are based around climate change, new pathogens or competition for resources.