Evidence for Macroevolution (Common Descent)

[ChristineM]

Well, genetically all humans can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to one mother, one (1), whom they, they, call "Eve". Interesting, no? First, apes are apes, whatever species. Some of these alleged preview or humans are claimed to exist by a single piece of broken skull. As one trained in the laws of evidence, this is paltry and wishes other than evidence. Do you consider the Neanderthals as humans ? well, of course they were, though they were considered once as precursor humans by evolutionists. They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong. They were human beings who interbred with other human beings, your DNA will show what percentage of theirs makes up yours

Not true on several levels.

Not a single piece but many thousands of single pieces of bone fragments have been analysed spanning 500,000 years.

It has been known that Neanderthal and Sapiens lived in the same overlapping time period, the only people I've seen claiming they were precursor humans are creationists attempting to bridge the dinosaur/ human gap

Neanderthals were not human but homo Neanderthalis, humans are homo Sapiens, recent research (The Nasal Complex of Neanderthals: An Entry Portal to their Place in Human Ancestry) shows they were not human.

Several Neanderthal hyoid bones have been examined and shown to be comparable with speech and positioned in the throat similarly to humans. This is not a guarantee that they could speak but a strong indicator. Basically science does not know, so please provide citation for your claim that "They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong."

 

[shmogie]

The first humans were 1-2 million years ago. Neanderthals were 350,000 years ago. So, they aren't what we are discussing here.

What actually are we discussing ? Extinct monkeys and apes, huge conclusions and creation of a species by one found jaw bone or partial skull, A single female ancestor for all humans, or how do you know the first humans were one to two million years ago, what ?

 

[ChristineM]

I am not even trying to make the case for a literal Biblical Eve here, I guess I could though. My point was, evolutionists originally considered Neanderthals as dim witted non speaking precursor humans that were slaughtered into extinction by the ultimate of evolution, cro magnon people. Their conclusions were all wrong, they were intelligent, they spoke, and their smaller populations were absorbed and diluted. They didn't become extinct by anything but blending. We could spend a whole lot of time on the entire concept of "dating"................. but we won't

Not quite, there is little evidence that cro magnon slaughtered Neanderthal. On the contrary, the evidence is that Neanderthal failed to adapt to climate change and the encroachment of the better equipped and more tactical cro magnon.

No need to tell me, one of the reasons i moved to France was to spend more time studying cro magnon and incidentally Neanderthal.

 

[ChristineM]

... We could spend a whole lot of time on the entire concept of "dating"................. but we won't

Why not, because you know I'm correct?

 

[shmogie]

Not true on several levels.

Not a single piece but many thousands of single pieces of bone fragments have been analysed spanning 500,000 years.

It has been known that Neanderthal and Sapiens lived in the same time period, the only people I've seen claiming they were precursor humans are creationists attempting to bridge the dinosaur/ human gap

Neanderthals were not human but homo Neanderthalis, humans are homo Sapiens, recent research (The Nasal Complex of Neanderthals: An Entry Portal to their Place in Human Ancestry) shows they were not human.

Several Neanderthal hyoid bones have been examined and shown to be comparable with speech and positioned in the throat similarly to humans. This is not a guarantee that they could speak but a strong indicator. Basically science does not know, so please provide citation for your claim that "They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong."

Then you haven't looked at the history of evolution nor the early articles written about neanderthals by early evolutionists. Your conclusion that they were not human is nonsense, they interbred with other people of the arbitrary and nonsensical other species. Thus they were human, unless you are going to propose the "species" classifiction is useless as one species interbreeds with another, which is problematic. Therefore humans are humans, horse like creatures are horse like creatures etc. If species means small physical differences but the ability to interbreed, that's a neanderthal of a different color. I have had a particular interest in the Neanderthals since I was an atheist/ evolutionist at the university and early graduate years. It continues to this day and I am very up to date on the current research regarding them. You echo what is becoming a minority opinion. Most now recognize they created art objects, specifically manufactured jewelry, worked out an extremely complicated method of knapping flint for tools that has only been recreated in in the last ten years ( vastly superior to other "humans ") that most likely would have required language to teach to new generations, and burials have been found that show concern for the dead, religious connotations, and care. They were most assuredly humans, with a larger brain than we, whatever their sinuses looked like.

 

[shmogie]

Not quite, there is little evidence that cro magnon slaughtered Neanderthal. On the contrary, the evidence is that Neanderthal failed to adapt to climate change and the encroachment of the better equipped and more tactical cro magnon.

No need to tell me, one of the reasons i moved to France was to spend more time studying cro magnon and incidentally Neanderthal.

Good ! Neanderthals were most functional in extremely cold weather, warmer weather effected them in such ways as lower oxygen and tiring easily, right ? The prevailing theory now is that they became extinct by absorption into the larger, better adapted cro magnon population, not by murder or war

 

[shmogie]

Why not, because you know I'm correct?

No, because it bores me, and no matter what evidence you or I produce, we will wind up exactly where we are now.

 

[shmogie]

Not quite, there is little evidence that cro magnon slaughtered Neanderthal. On the contrary, the evidence is that Neanderthal failed to adapt to climate change and the encroachment of the better equipped and more tactical cro magnon.

No need to tell me, one of the reasons i moved to France was to spend more time studying cro magnon and incidentally Neanderthal.

You are right, no evidence of slaughter by cro magnon, BUT that is what was believed for decades

 

[ChristineM]

Then you haven't looked at the history of evolution nor the early articles written about neanderthals by early evolutionists. Your conclusion that they were not human is nonsense, they interbred with other people of the arbitrary and nonsensical other species. Thus they were human, unless you are going to propose the "species" classifiction is useless as one species interbreeds with another, which is problematic. Therefore humans are humans, horse like creatures are horse like creatures etc. If species means small physical differences but the ability to interbreed, that's a neanderthal of a different color. I have had a particular interest in the Neanderthals since I was an atheist/ evolutionist at the university and early graduate years. It continues to this day and I am very up to date on the current research regarding them. You echo what is becoming a minority opinion. Most now recognize they created art objects, specifically manufactured jewelry, worked out an extremely complicated method of knapping flint for tools that has only been recreated in in the last ten years ( vastly superior to other "humans ") that most likely would have required language to teach to new generations, and burials have been found that show concern for the dead, religious connotations, and care. They were most assuredly humans, with a larger brain than we, whatever their sinuses looked like.

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.html

I study them, i go to cro magnon and Neanderthal sites and digs, i am not happier than crawling in a cave and discovering an artifact . so your stereotype and misinformation not only show you are out of date, they bastardise teaching of a fascinating subject.

https://smithlhhsb122.wikispaces.com/file/view/tree of life.jpg/473740988/433x346/tree of life.jpg

Note the split at homo Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal and sapiens took different evolutionary paths

 

[ChristineM]

No, because it bores me, and no matter what evidence you or I produce, we will wind up exactly where we are now.

Yes, with h me educated and you reciting outdated nonesence

 

[ChristineM]

You are right, no evidence of slaughter by cro magnon, BUT that is what was believed for decades

Yet you said and i quote
" that were slaughtered into extinction by the ultimate of evolution, cro magnon people. "

 

[ChristineM]

Good ! Neanderthals were most functional in extremely cold weather, warmer weather effected them in such ways as lower oxygen and tiring easily, right ? The prevailing theory now is that they became extinct by absorption into the larger, better adapted cro magnon population, not by murder or war

Yet you say they were slaughtered. Interesting you change your mind but fail to acknowledge it

 

[shmogie]

Yet you say they were slaughtered. Interesting you change your mind but fail to acknowledge it

No, I never said they were slaughtered, please re read my post. I said early evolutionists had this view, and it was a common view, not that it was MY view

 

[shmogie]

Yet you said and i quote
" that were slaughtered into extinction by the ultimate of evolution, cro magnon people. "

Please re read my post, you left the previous sentence or two out. Not my view

 

[shmogie]

Yes, with h me educated and you reciting outdated nonesence

Really, with you educated ? Hmmmmmmm, what makes you think I am not educated ? My written English is certainly better than yours ! LOL

 

[shmogie]

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.html

I study them, i go to cro magnon and Neanderthal sites and digs, i am not happier than crawling in a cave and discovering an artifact . so your stereotype and misinformation not only show you are out of date, they bastardise teaching of a fascinating subject.

https://smithlhhsb122.wikispaces.com/file/view/tree of life.jpg/473740988/433x346/tree of life.jpg

Note the split at homo Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal and sapiens took different evolutionary paths

Sorry, but you ought to get your nose out of the dirt and do a little current research on them Obviously, I know much more about what the latest research has revealed about them, than you. Oh, wait, we are using a different term, sub species, but you said, a different species ? humans are humans and if they can interbreed, they are humans no matter the artificial title given in classification by some clown who thinks his opinion (that's all it is ) means much. Sub species means virtually nothing.

 

[sayak83]

I wasn't trying to make that connection. I am quite satisfied to say that all humans are ultimately descendants of one female

The line of descent converges to that one female only in a strict female to female line and not otherwise. We will be descendants of other females if we take a female-male-male-female... line etc.
So no, your assertion is false. We are not descendants of that one female. There is no objective way to decide on the line of descent, and each combination will produce a different answer.

 

[shmogie]

The line of descent converges to that one female only in a strict female to female line and not otherwise. We will be descendants of other females if we take a female-male-male-female... line etc.
So no, your assertion is false. We are not descendants of that one female. There is no objective way to decide on the line of descent, and each combination will produce a different answer.

Whoa ! You just changed your story. I SPECIFICALLY asked you if all humans were the descendants of one female, you answered the question with a yes. Now, a no. Gads, is a strait answer possible on this issue ? It can't be yes and no, it can only be yes or no, and you have said both. So, which is it ? Is it yes for some people because of their possible conclusions and no to other people for the same reason ? It's beginning to sound like ballsed up gibberish to me. I will look into it myself.

 

[sayak83]

Whoa ! You just changed your story. I SPECIFICALLY asked you if all humans were the descendants of one female, you answered the question with a yes. Now, a no. Gads, is a strait answer possible on this issue ? It can't be yes and no, it can only be yes or no, and you have said both. So, which is it ? Is it yes for some people because of their possible conclusions and no to other people for the same reason ? It's beginning to sound like ballsed up gibberish to me. I will look into it myself.

No. There is a female into which all female to female descent line converges, but that does not mean she is the one unique female from whom all humans are descended. There are no such person, male or female. There are hundreds and thousands of beings male and female, all at different times, of whom we are descendants based on how the counting is done.

 

[Altfish]

Cute ! Same species though.

Of course they are! What do you expect a crocoduck?
Unfortunately you are displaying your misunderstanding of evolution.
Every off-spring is the same species, it is change over time. It is only after many, many generations when you take the great, great, great.....grandfather and compare it to the latest off-spring that you discover that speciation has occurred. Then if both were still alive they would not be able to interbreed.
One species in a single generation does not give birth to a different species.