Are scientists any closer

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, thanks for that. So now the reason I brought this up is because I've read that "Neanderthal" DNA resides in some people now. As if that proves "Neanderthals" comingled with present type organisms that are NOT Neanderthals. That is why I brought it up.

How else would you explain that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't know why you don't know where I'm going with this. I'm not an expert, but I'd like to know how someone concludes that which is called "Neanderthal" man interbred with "modern man" (homo sapiens, I believe) because so-called Neanderthal DNA is in homo sapiens.

I gave you that information months ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

You sound as if you have been using liars for Jesus. Scientists are rightfully ignored until they can support their claims. And peer review is not perfect. Nothing ever is. But since the Bible doesn't have a self correcting mechanism for its countless errors it has that book of myths beat all hollow.

You make grandiose statements. Some scientists now revered were laughed at and scorned by their contemporaries. One well known but sad chap is Semmelweis, who displayed biblical measures by keeping clean, and as a result he changed the world of medicine. But not before he was laughed at, and scorned.
Medical Breakthroughs That Were Initially Ridiculed or Rejected (medscape.com)

 

[YoursTrue]

I gave you that information months ago.

Unfortunately, your genetic statistics do not prove that man evolved as you would have it. But that's ok. You're entitled to your opinion even if you can't explain it with soundness (actual evidence) except for guesswork as to how it happened.. That's ok. You helped me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I've read that as well.

So you could not put any dates on to ice age end or neanderthal end.
Interesting.

The dates are conjectured, and I mean conjectured about "Neanderthal man." It's easy to do a search on this. Can you put a date on these things, in particular Neanderthal man? What do you believe, that's the thing.
Wikipedia says,
"Neanderthals are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. They most likely went extinct due to assimilation into the modern human genome (bred into extinction), great climatic change, disease, or a combination of these factors. They were fully replaced by early European modern humans."

 

[YoursTrue]

Ask the experts. I am not an expert in this matter either. One thing about the sciences if one scientist makes a claim without sufficient evidence they will be called out by their fellow scientists. They do not automatically agree with each other. If anything it is the opposite.

uh HUH. About not knowing about the DNA resemblance. OK. got it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I've read that as well.

So you could not put any dates on to ice age end or neanderthal end.
Interesting.

Scientists project a date based on how many bones? about the end of neanderthals then go on to talk about some other type of human that may have or who knows (not) intermingled with whoever there was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

uh HUH. About not knowing about the DNA resemblance. OK. got it.

I do not know the specifics. I could look them up. So could you. Why don't you ever do your homework? Why do you think that the other side loses when they are honest? That implies that you think dishonesty is a valid tool in debate.

 

[nPeace]

That's a 100% relevant question NP.
If you would like to give a rough date for the ending of the Ice Age, the recession of the glaciers and polar caps, then I could explain to you so much more easily how this is directly connected to the man/ape conversation here.
Researchers think that this important event occured between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago...... but what sort of date would you put on that event?
Thank you.
OB

I'm not sure if you are mistaken, but there is no man/ape event in history. That only exists in stories... to my knowledge.

Isn't there an ongoing debate on dating of the ice-Age? As far as I know, that has not been confirmed. Nor can it be... unless someone has the videotape with the date... and then I am told, videotape isn't even trustworthy, as they can be edited.

Looks like we are having the same problem where the Bible is concerned.

 

[oldbadger]

The dates are conjectured, and I mean conjectured about "Neanderthal man." It's easy to do a search on this. Can you put a date on these things, in particular Neanderthal man? What do you believe, that's the thing.
Wikipedia says,
"Neanderthals are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. They most likely went extinct due to assimilation into the modern human genome (bred into extinction), great climatic change, disease, or a combination of these factors. They were fully replaced by early European modern humans."

So...... what do you believe about dating the end of neanderthal man and the end of the ice age?

 

[oldbadger]

Scientists project a date based on how many bones? about the end of neanderthals then go on to talk about some other type of human that may have or who knows (not) intermingled with whoever there was.

So you don't have any opinions about dating the end of neanderthal man or the ice age end.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not sure if you are mistaken, but there is no man/ape event in history. That only exists in stories... to my knowledge.

Isn't there an ongoing debate on dating of the ice-Age? As far as I know, that has not been confirmed. Nor can it be... unless someone has the videotape with the date... and then I am told, videotape isn't even trustworthy, as they can be edited.

Looks like we are having the same problem where the Bible is concerned.

So you don't have any opinions about dating the end of the ice age or neanderthal man. OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...... what do you believe about dating the end of neanderthal man and the end of the ice age?

No thanks. I prefer women of my own age.

 

[nPeace]

You overlook the fact that science has standards for evidence (reproducibility).

Whereas the only "evidence" for the literal biblical account of the creation of life is the mere words on the page. Corroborated by nothing whatsoever. These words are even self-contradictory if taken literally. So what kind of "evidence" is that? For this reason they have for centuries been interpreted as allegorical, because the scholars of the church were not fools.

Sorry, No. That's not true at all.
A lot that has been said in the Bible has been reproduced, continue to be reproduced, and is reproducible.
also, just because an explosion is reproducible, that does not mean that an explosion was responsible for... say, as an example, the universe.
The moon being where it is located, and the size it is, etc., is not proven to be so, because one can reproduce a deflection from a collision that one sets up with all the circumstances one wants to exist.
In other words, making assumptions does not prove anything scientifically.

Anyone can do that. "Let's see... This looks like that, and that looks like this, so that must have come from this."
"Yeah. You are right. See how that has two of these, and that has one. It's because the two became one."

Then the community agrees. All in favor say aye.

The oddballs get eyeballed... and treated... special.
Then you call it science. It's not.

I guess we have a lot of fools, but nobody will admit they are.

Then we have the discoveries that time and again confirm the Genesis account, but what happens... They get shoved into the other corner, where the community says with a smile, "That's ours. ". Or they are just ignored.

God’s Laws on Hygiene Were Ahead of Their Time
Does Science Agree With the Bible?

The cry of allegory just is one huge failure, when one knows what the Bible contains.

 

[Astrophile]

Probably...? but how do you figure probably. .when scientists are no closer to see the common ancestor for these current apes. Perhaps you can explain the logic because evidently there is no proof. Guessing is not proof and nothing shows proof of evolution with a common ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas, yet they're still here in their glory.

I obtained my information from the books Seven Million Years: The Story of Human Evolution by Douglas Palmer (first published 2005) and Born in Africa: The Quest for the origins of Human Life by Martin Meredith (first published 2011); you also may find these books informative.

However, if you want to understand in detail the evidence connecting modern apes (including humans) with Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, Pierolapithecus and Proconsul, you will have to read a lot of academic books about paleontology, mammalian anatomy, anthropology, and other things. Once you understand these matters, you will have to read the original papers by the scientists who found and studied the fossils. You may even have to take university courses in biology and paleontology. Once you have done all this, you will be in a better position to understand the evidence connecting modern apes with their putative Miocene ancestors.

 

[nPeace]

So you don't have any opinions about dating the end of the ice age or neanderthal man. OK.

I leave those opinions for those guys who seem to enjoy making them, no matter how often it turns out to be a ball of mess.

 

[ecco]

And that puts the research community in a bit of a quandary.

And that puts the research community in a bit of a quandary.

What's your point?
Scientists don't all agree on what should be included in "planet".
Scientists don't all agree on the causes of ADHD.

What's your point?
Creationists don't all agree on the length of a "day".
Creationists don't all agree on the age of the earth.
Creationists don't all agree on the order of Creation events.

What's your point? You have no point.

 

[ecco]

There is no general consensus in science that the evidence for life originating in outer space is overwhelming.

There is no general consensus in science that the evidence for life ON EARTH originating in outer space is overwhelming.

 

[Astrophile]

And how long ago do you think the Ice Age ended?

This is like asking when winter ends. Is it at the vernal equinox, or on the last day of February (or the last day of August in the southern hemisphere), or on the last day when it snows? According to https:en.wikipedia.org/Würm_glaciation, the last ice age ended about 11,700 years ago, but sources differ about the date. As you will see from the isotopic data obtained from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores (see below), the recession of the ice age lasted several thousand years, probably from about 20,000 years to about 11,700 years ago.

 

[ecco]

I guess we have a lot of fools, but nobody will admit they are.

Ah, the irony.