• 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!

Interesting new find

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
fantôme profane;2284918 said:
Sure, but the journey need not be smooth, it need not be a constant pace, and it need always even be in the same direction. As an analogy, I am on my way home from work. I am making good time on the highway till I get in a traffic jam, then I practically stop, moving very slowly. There is construction and I have to make a detour. Then I decide to stop at the store and pick up some groceries. Then I get home. Regardless of the route I still get from point A to point B.

Likewise the idea that we may have interbred with other closely related species does not change the fact that we have evolved from a common ancestor. Our evolutionary path may not be as straight as once thought, but it is still an evolutionary path.

Personally I'm all for inter species breeding and evolving, selective breeding as evolving, Artificial evolution as evolving. I can only state what I read or others complain about and I verify.

This site especially, anything I say about evolution is wrong even when I correct it for what another person on this site told me and verified. I am not a part of the established evolutional speakers that this site allows. But sometimes I still get a rush out of hearing them whine about what I say. My words can somehow crush the entire evolutionary process. What a rush:angel2:
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
Personally I'm all for inter species breeding and evolving, selective breeding as evolving, Artificial evolution as evolving. I can only state what I read or others complain about and I verify.

This site especially, anything I say about evolution is wrong even when I correct it for what another person on this site told me and verified. I am not a part of the established evolutional speakers that this site allows. But sometimes I still get a rush out of hearing them whine about what I say. My words can somehow crush the entire evolutionary process. What a rush:angel2:
That's cause this is the evolutionary priesthood over here, and your pagan idolatry must be cleansed with the purifying flame! Muah-ha-ha-ha! :devil:
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
It would be interesting though how a creationist would tackle this because the evidence sure is different from whats written in certain books

According to the researchers, this provides confirmation there were at least four distinct types of human in existence when anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) first left their African homeland.
 

Amill

Apikoros
So we're down to just the African lineage that hasn't been found to interbreed with other hominids?
 

David M

Well-Known Member
in the rare cases where different species can breed, such as horse and donkey, the offspring in infertile so there would not be a new species that can reproduce

Except there are cases where the offspring are fertile with one of the parent species. Such as is the case with female mules (the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse).

So horse/donkey hybrids do not support your argument.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I think it's pretty cool... I love finding out our history is even more interesting then we ever thought.

But I'm sure that some people find the fact that science learns new things every day disturbing. The idea that knowledge changes and the past isn't black and white doesn't bring comfort of advance but fear of the unknown in the future.

wa:do
 

outhouse

Atheistically
bobhikes oe anyone else for that matter, evolution is not a ladder but more like a bush more so then a tree.

evolution is complicated, thats why creationist cant wrap their heads around it, i get it wrong all the time but enjoy when im told im worng because then im learning about it.


This discovery adds to the puzzle.

I think its funny throwing creationist a bone and watching them nip their own tails running circles till they are all dizzy :thud:
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
bobhikes oe anyone else for that matter, evolution is not a ladder but more like a bush more so then a tree.

evolution is complicated, thats why creationist cant wrap their heads around it, i get it wrong all the time but enjoy when im told im worng because then im learning about it.


This discovery adds to the puzzle.

I think its funny throwing creationist a bone and watching them nip their own tails running circles till they are all dizzy :thud:

Yes, I too get a lot wrong all the time. But I try to answer my best to answer the question and not decimate a preceive wrong answer. I also provide links so the person can make an informed decision on there own.
 
Mules can be fertile, In fact all cross breeds have been known to produce fertile offspring. It is just a low percentage.

Hybrids between species with common ancestry close enough to produce some kind of offspring but not close enough to produce a true breeding line will have sterile males and fertile females, this has to do with the way mitosis occurs in the male gamates as opposed to the femail ones.

What I'd like to see is a creationist explain why mules exist at all. They advocate biblical "Kinds" as a taxonomy which breed true and never become a new species only possibly new subspecies. These hybrids don't follow the biblical mandate to "breed after their own kind"

Anyone read anything about the various studies comparing samples of neandertal mtDNA to the modern sapiens genome? It appears neandertals didn't contribute at all to the modern population and were truly a separate species. If hybrid sapiens/neanderthalensis females came about you'd think at least they'd have passed on some neandertal DNA unless the two species are simply totally sterile to each other.
 

Amill

Apikoros
Anyone read anything about the various studies comparing samples of neandertal mtDNA to the modern sapiens genome? It appears neandertals didn't contribute at all to the modern population and were truly a separate species. If hybrid sapiens/neanderthalensis females came about you'd think at least they'd have passed on some neandertal DNA unless the two species are simply totally sterile to each other.

Unless there has been some recent studies or evidence found it appears that that some populations of homo sapiens DID interbreed with neanderthals.
Neanderthals may have interbred with humans : Nature News
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Yes producing dead end hybrids apparently.

H. sapiens will have sex with anything.
No, they produced at least one fertile hybrid (possibly two)... otherwise the few genes that managed to make it into the H. sapiens population. Which they did, which is why we know they interbred.

There was gene flow between our populations.

wa:do
 
No, they produced at least one fertile hybrid (possibly two)... otherwise the few genes that managed to make it into the H. sapiens population. Which they did, which is why we know they interbred.

There was gene flow between our populations.

wa:do


I see, I hadn't yet read the article very thoroughly - interesting. Neandertal DNA could have entered the modern genome through a hybrid female. Previous research I've read (Kring) strongly held the position via the mtDNA mutations between neandertals and moderns that they truly were separate species and not just different breeds/races and as this new article alludes previous research seemed to conclude no neandertal DNA had gotten into the modern genome.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I see, I hadn't yet read the article very thoroughly - interesting. Neandertal DNA could have entered the modern genome through a hybrid female. Previous research I've read (Kring) strongly held the position via the mtDNA mutations between neandertals and moderns that they truly were separate species and not just different breeds/races and as this new article alludes previous research seemed to conclude no neandertal DNA had gotten into the modern genome.
We are different species... the Neanderthal genes are only present in a portion of the modern human population. Namely those lineages that diverged after leaving Africa.

wa:do
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
in the rare cases where different species can breed, such as horse and donkey, the offspring in infertile so there would not be a new species that can reproduce

Dogs can breed with wolves
And domestic cats with many distinct wild cat species.

It is only when the genetic link is too far removed that there can be viability problems.

These species of hominids, Cromagnon, Neanderthals and this new find, could and did all interbreed.

It is quite likely that other close cousins will be found in the future.
 
Last edited:
Dogs can breed with wolves
And domestic cats with many distinct wild cat species.

Yes though recently dogs, wolves and coyotes were placed under one species. The liger male is a sterile hybrid, I'm not sure of some of the domestic cats + smaller wild feline species.

I'm of the school that if two groups of a Genera breed true they are the same species. I know for example variations of some parrots are labeled different species but freely breed when brought together. Same with some cichlid species though in their case a few can only bring about hybrids with human assistance and won't continue a line (so called "blood parrot cichlids" the females of which can be bred back to one of the parent species).
 
Top