• 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?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Again, my point is that humans remain humans, even if there are changes in complexion by means of genetics. They don't become something else.


Have you already forgotten how plenty of people just explained to you in your previous threads how species never outgrow their ancestry?

Yes, all descendents of humans will remain humans.

Just like humans are "still" primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes

All our off spring will be mammals, primates, vertebrates,... and humans.
They'll likely further speciate into subspecies. Those will be subspecies of humans. They'll still be humans.

If you would have an elementary understanding of the theory you are so hellbend on arguing against, I wouldn't need to have to explain this to you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Just released -- "Modern brains are younger than originally thought, possibly developing as recently as 1.5 million years ago, according to a study published Thursday -- after the earliest humans had already begun walking on two feet and had even started fanning out from Africa."
Like I say, what's a few million years change in evolution? After all, them's the facts (according to the many). Give or take a few million -- (who cares?)
Mind blown: Modern brains evolved much more recently than thought (msn.com)
More from this article:
"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?"
:)
(My, me oh my...!)

You do realize that science, more specifically in paleontology, can only study fossils of skulls, and not the actual brains, don’t you?

Soft tissues, like the brains, don’t tend to fossilize. What do they have to work with, are the shape and size in the morphology of the skulls, not the actual brains themselves.

Second, the modern humans are the Homo sapiens from the genus Homo, which have been only around approximately 200,000 years, but older human species exist earlier than that, so the article you have been reading, are not about the Homo sapiens “human”, but of other species.

The article is still rather vague in the detail, mainly because the article’s author only didn’t go beyond generalizing Zollikofer’s outlines in discovery/explanations.

And since, the article didn’t say what this species is, then I can only guess and summarize that this species might be the Homo ergaster (which is known as the “African Homo erectus”), since the article had mentioned the tool industry to be Archeulean, which existed in time period of 1.5 million years ago.

But the Homo ergaster have been around between 1.8 and 1.4 million years ago, and the Homo heidelbergensis may have directly evolved from the Homo heidelbergensis, which have been around as early as 1.3 million years ago.

Lastly, as others have pointed out to you, the discovery don't refute human evolution, since the theory can be updated by new evidence, which provide new information (data) to the theory.

So I am not sure why you were crowing about victory for creationism, when the discovery mentioned in this article only consolidate Natural Selection as a mechanism (one of several mechanisms) of Evolution.
 
Top