• 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!

Ah--what's a few million years?

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
What is partial interbreeding, please, and can you give some modern day examples?
Only a portion of the Neanderthal genome was integrated into H. s. sapiens. And then not completely to the point that the integration was universal in our population. Not everyone has Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. The evidence shows that the only viable or surviving pairings between our species and Neanderthal were mating between male Neanderthal and female H. s. sapiens. Limited gene exchange or interbreeding might be a better way to describe it.

Molecular biologists have determined that there exists in our genomes, the presence of DNA from an as yet unknown species of Homo for which no fossil evidence has been found. What is your explanation for something like this?
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
That is what I thought. Here is what I read: "Oct 09, 2019 · A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (a jack) and a female horse (a mare). A horse has 64 chromosomes, and a donkey has 62. The mule ends up with 63. Mules can be either male or female, but, because of the odd number of chromosomes, they can’t reproduce." Question: Can You Breed A Male Horse To A Female Donkey? - Horse (mayonahorse.com)
I read further and see that in rare cases, some mules have reproduced. Not sure how these offsprings integrated in the general population, or if they did.
So I go back to chimpanzees, bonobos and that "unknown common ancestor." Again -- going back to walking fish. Tetrapods. It seems to me it would be highly unlikely, to the point of close to nil, that humans evolved by interbreeding. Mules can’t reproduce. Here’s the biological explanation why. | Belleville News-Democrat (bnd.com) (Do walking fish and regular fish interbreed? I don't know the answer yet. Perhaps they do? Getting late -- )
The Tragopogon I mentioned earlier has known examples of hybrid speciation where two new, viable species arose out of three species introduced into North America. This speciation occurred rather rapidly--almost instantaneously--by evolutionary standards during the last 200 years. Apparently, Tragopogon is a very good model for studying hybrid speciation.

Editor's choice: 250 years of hybridization between two biennial herb species without speciation
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Only a portion of the Neanderthal genome was integrated into H. s. sapiens. And then not completely to the point that the integration was universal in our population. Not everyone has Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. The evidence shows that the only viable or surviving pairings between our species and Neanderthal were mating between male Neanderthal and female H. s. sapiens. Limited gene exchange or interbreeding might be a better way to describe it.

Molecular biologists have determined that there exists in our genomes, the presence of DNA from an as yet unknown species of Homo for which no fossil evidence has been found. What is your explanation for something like this?

According to the newer study, it was male and female from both having at it with each other and Neanderthal DNA can be found in everyone alive today, including people of African descent, whose ancestors aren’t thought to have come into contact with this group directly


Here's what we know sex with Neanderthals was like
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Are you trying to have a happy dance because you see this article as a challenge of some kind to science as a foundation of knowledge?
No. If scientists can't figure it out really, why should I take their word for it that we evolved (using one example) from fish way down the line to humans. Again, while there is conjecture about different forms, there is no absolute proof.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
No. If scientists can't figure it out really, why should I take their word for it that we evolved (using one example) from fish way down the line to humans. Again, while there is conjecture about different forms, there is no absolute proof.

You say this...while using a computer...
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
According to the newer study, it was male and female from both having at it with each other and Neanderthal DNA can be found in everyone alive today, including people of African descent, whose ancestors aren’t thought to have come into contact with this group directly


Here's what we know sex with Neanderthals was like
The idea of progeneration of humans in the way of evolution, interbreeding (?) from two humanoid populations, is again, unsubstantiated, regardless of the genetic situation, as I also don't believe that humans began 75,000 years ago. Or so. Skulls and bone fragments take up the mineral content where they were buried.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The idea of progeneration of humans in the way of evolution, interbreeding (?) from two humanoid populations, is again, unsubstantiated, regardless of the genetic situation, as I also don't believe that humans began 75,000 years ago. Or so. Skulls and bone fragments take up the mineral content where they were buried.
Yes, humans began long before that. And I do not think you understand what the article said. We still have Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. We can see specific genes that are Neanderthal genes in people. Neanderthals did not die out that long ago. Their DNA has been sequenced.

Your last sentence is quite the non sequitur.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
No. If scientists can't figure it out really, why should I take their word for it that we evolved (using one example) from fish way down the line to humans. Again, while there is conjecture about different forms, there is no absolute proof.
It's science. There is never absolute proof. But I have no proof for my own Christian beliefs either. I don't even have evidence for it either. At least science has evidence.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I was not talking about domestic dogs. The scenario I spoke of involved wild dogs in the very beginning leading to the changes we see via fossils. Domestication of dogs is when humans began to lead the dogs due to selective breeding. We cannot domesticate wolves the same way. Domestic dogs are more compliant and dependent than wild dogs. Domestic dogs do not have the same instincts as wild dogs like the wolf.

Forming an alliance and learning from wolves, for example, would be very useful for the ape man, who had to leave an easy survival environment. Going north would add a lot of wild cards. They need the dogs running on all natural cylinders and not just a shell they can boss around make dysfunctional. These two natural species saw an advantage for themselves; nurturing each other.

Science and Evolution confuses the issue, since science uses a very shallow criteria for defining humans; DNA and bones. All you can get from bones and fossils is a shallow shell criteria.

I prefer define humans in terms of the human brain's operating system. This will define what is possible at any given point in time. If you have a ten year old computer with a current operating system, its capacity can appear beyond the same make and model with the original operating system. Civilization did not form until about 6000-10,000 years ago, because the operating system of the human brain was not yet advanced enough. There were many starts up in terms of early civilization 10,000 years ago. These all aborted. This was more than likely due to only a few people having the needed operating system. Once they passed or died, the rest of the pre-humans reverted back to instinct.

What needed to evolve and stick, for civilization to stick, was a secondary center of consciousness; ego, that could exist apart from instinct, and even override it. The bible calls this free will and choice when speaking of Adam and Eve. They had the new operating system, that made these humans different from the animals. I call the science based humans, before civilization, the pre-human in terms of the brain's operating system. They were human looking animals, but without a stable secondary center of consciousness for will and choice.

In the story of Cain and Abel, after Cain kills Abel, God threatens to expel him. Cain laments that whomever shall come upon him shall kill him. The question is who were these whomever, if Adam and Eve were the first humans and they only had one son, left? These whomever were the prehuman or the animal man.

Abel was the herder of animals; migratory prehuman, and Cain was a tiller of soil; farmer. This symbolism of killing Abel, shows farming superseding migratory herding; modern civilization appears. It also show this was not connected to DNA, entirely, since Abel retained his animal prehuman nature; migratory herder. Cain is given a talisman for protection from the pre-human friends of Abel. Cain goes on to reproduce with prehuman females ,since they had the same human DNA. Cain had the new operating system, and would pass this on to his children through teaching and nurture. He forms other cultures.

The one invention that appears to have been key to the needed upgrade in the operating system of the human brain, beyond the genetic nature of the pre-human, was the invention of writing and the alphabet. This invention is dated by science to be about 6000 years ago, which is also the bible estimate for the change in man. In the beginning was word and word was God. In the beginning refers to the new man with the new operating system. He was changed by the word, God.

What writing did was create a repression of natural instinct, that could also override the brain's natural instinct to forward integrate memory and experiences. Before writing, there was only spoken language. One had to learn from word of mouth. There were no study materials connected to writing; note taking and books.

This type of learning would not be reliable over the longer term. Civilization could start up, via inventors, but it would abort as the new generations forget how to maintain the critical things. Once writing appears, there is a way to review and override the natural inertia of memory. Civilization could stick.

Some early writing applications, like the original rules of good and evil, could over stay their welcome. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was a pivotal application of the invention of writing. Knowledge needs to evolve, but some early writing; like law, could cause knowledge to stagnate and become repressive; carved into stone. This may have been needed to spread the secondary to the entire population. As it is written so it shall be done.
Adam and Eve had other children. They obviously formed colonies (families that established groups, perhaps villages, because a city was built not too long after that). Genesis 5:4 shows that during his 930 years of life, Adam became father to sons and daughters. Cain could have married a granddaughter of Adam, but that is not known. What is known is that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The idea of progeneration of humans in the way of evolution, interbreeding (?) from two humanoid populations, is again, unsubstantiated, regardless of the genetic situation, as I also don't believe that humans began 75,000 years ago. Or so. Skulls and bone fragments take up the mineral content where they were buried.
And you are free to believe that if you choose. I will accept the science.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
And you are free to believe that if you choose. I will accept the science.
There are real facts along with the scientific conjectures as to time. For instance, for one thing, skulls buried in soil or stone may not reveal the actual age of the bone.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
And you are free to believe that if you choose. I will accept the science.
P.S. the science shows dna. A city in Egypt was just discovered upon excavation. I didn't read about skulls and bones unearthed there yet, but I'm wondering.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Adam and Eve had other children. They obviously formed colonies (families that established groups, perhaps villages, because a city was built not too long after that). Genesis 5:4 shows that during his 930 years of life, Adam became father to sons and daughters. Cain could have married a granddaughter of Adam, but that is not known. What is known is that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.
We do not know that Adam and Eve actually existed. So how can it be known that they had children that actually existed?

At this point, all Adam and Eve are is a claim with no evidence. While there is evidence for human evolution.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Made us human and not -- gorillas?? Or whatever is supposed to be the last known legitimate, legal ancestor?? :)
"Scientists have been trying to solve a mystery for as long as our origin story has been known: Exactly when and where did the brain evolve into something that made us human?"
"MADE US HUMAN??????" Really???"

Are you complaining about writer's freedom in this media article?

You realize that those are the words of a reporter trying to get clicks, not of a scientist only interested in drafting a good report, right?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As one biologist said, nobody, but nobody, has found any real proof of brains evolving (in progress). :)

what do you mean "in progress"?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that your answer is once again going to expose how little you understand of the subject matter.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The Zika kids -- their brains didn't get larger, did they? Well, who knows, maybe human brains can get smaller by evolutionary process, of course? As I said, maybe humans will develop wings some day, you think?

Sounds like you didn't listen to what other people were saying in reply to you when you said those stupid things about humans evolving wings and what-not.

Why do we even bother replying to you?
Clearly nothing we say is remembered by you.
Clearly you have no interest in learning at all.

PLENTY of people, me included, have explained to absurd lengths why nobody expects humans to grow wings and why.

Yet here you are, repeating the same nonsense and then some.

I find it baffling how you insist on staying ignorant of the subject you somehow are also hellbend on arguing against.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
People have been wrongly convicted by suggestion of guilt. That's why it's not quite the same as seeing the crime. Furthermore, from a publication (New American), "Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a “Dissent” statement expressing skepticism about Darwin’s evolution theory, sparking fresh controversy over an idea that is at the core of many people’s worldview. The significant announcement, made last month, has been all but ignored by the establishment media. But it is making waves nevertheless."
Hmm, "all but ignored..." And so I'm prepared for the tearing down of the reputation of the dissenters by those who uphold the unseen Theory. Almost like politics. ("Let's get 'em.") Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American


Project Steve - Wikipedia
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
:) So slowly there is no real-time evidence showing shift of RNA and DNA to other forms, such as: fish to walking fish. :) Or better yet, fish to tetrapods. Nothing. Continued conjecture based on -- similar dna and shape sometimes.

upload_2021-4-12_20-30-19.png


Half fish, half tetrapod.
Found by prediction.

You know this, as several people have brought it to your attention on multiple occasions.
This is not "after the fact conjecture".

This is literally a species that was unknown and who's whereabouts and anatomical features were predicted based on evolutionary history, geological history, etc.

A grand epic win for corroboration between several independent fields of science, coming together to make this amazing prediction and subsequent discovery.

If evolution is so false, then
- how did they know where to dig?
- how did they know how deep to dig?
- how did they know what anatomical features it would have?
 
Top