• 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!

Evidence for Macroevolution (Common Descent)

Is there any verifiable evidence that contradicts macroevolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 13 100.0%

  • Total voters
    13

Altfish

Veteran Member
You are right, no evidence of slaughter by cro magnon, BUT that is what was believed for decades
Yes, and as has been said on these forums time and time again, science changes when offered new evidence.
Provide scientists with evidence for your claims, write a paper and put it forward for peer review and if it survives that you will become famous.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
The story of the Garden of Eden is what I am referring to. That did not happen as described in Genesis. No talking snake, not just two people, not like modern humans, didn't speak a language, etc.
so...Adam and God could communicate with less than spoken words?
I'm ok with that

and the serpent is more a statement of character than form

and I don't believe Adam was the first Man
just the first to walk with God
(chosen son of God.....as it is written)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are right, no evidence of slaughter by cro magnon, BUT that is what was believed for decades
Provide links showing this was believed for decades.
Provide links that slaughter has been ruled out in modern theories.
Obviously the fact that native Americans were slaughtered by the Spanish does not mean that they also did not intermingle such that there is substantial native American heritage in the America's. I find your either or distinctly odd.
Many species form stable and viable hybrids. But that does not eliminate species designation. Given the generation time and mean population size there is a threshold rate of gene flow below which two populations can maintain distinguishability of their gene pools indefinitely and are termed separate species. Complete reproductive isolation is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for distinguishing species.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
so...Adam and God could communicate with less than spoken words?
I'm ok with that

and the serpent is more a statement of character than form

and I don't believe Adam was the first Man
just the first to walk with God
(chosen son of God.....as it is written)
You are doing quite a bit of mental gymnastics to try and reconcile Genesis with the evidence. It seems like a clear indication of a confirmation bias.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.

I did not say different species, i even provided a link to an evolutionary tree and pointed out where the split occurred, and you have provided what??? Opinion, foot stomping...

Oh please try educating yourself

Ancient DNA and Neanderthals | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

"The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome."
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I did not say different species, i even provided a link to an evolutionary tree and pointed out where the split occurred, and you have provided what??? Opinion, foot stomping...

Oh please try educating yourself

Ancient DNA and Neanderthals | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

"The Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were substantially different from modern human mtDNA (Krings et al. 1997, 1999). Researchers compared the Neanderthal to modern human and chimpanzee sequences. Most human sequences differ from each other by on average 8.0 substitutions, while the human and chimpanzee sequences differ by about 55.0 substitutions. The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome."
Sorry, go back and look, you said different species. Neanderthals were humans, not a different species, nor a sub species. If they weren't human, they could not have inter bred. Word games, nothing more
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Sorry, go back and look, you said different species. Neanderthals were humans, not a different species, nor a sub species. If they weren't human, they could not have inter bred. Word games, nothing more

You have a very poor understanding of genetics. I provided an extract in my previous post with a link, seems you ignored it. Not my problem if you choose to ignore facts (DNA does not lie)
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Sorry, go back and look, you said different species. Neanderthals were humans, not a different species, nor a sub species. If they weren't human, they could not have inter bred. Word games, nothing more
Neanderthals were more like cousins to humanity. We know this because while it was possible to have fertile offspring between a pairing of us and them, it was relatively rare. We're slightly more related to Neanderthals than horses are related to donkeys, because a horse/donkey union isn't fertile.

Now, I would argue that just because they're not homo-sapiens-sapiens, that doesn't mean they weren't "human" in the more intelligence rather than genetic sense of the term. Genetically they were not human. Close enough for us to breed with them, though. However, on the flip side, genetically speaking there is no reason a human and chimpanzee couldn't produce an offspring. We're closely related enough for it to take.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Neanderthals were more like cousins to humanity. We know this because while it was possible to have fertile offspring between a pairing of us and them, it was relatively rare. We're slightly more related to Neanderthals than horses are related to donkeys, because a horse/donkey union isn't fertile.

Now, I would argue that just because they're not homo-sapiens-sapiens, that doesn't mean they weren't "human" in the more intelligence rather than genetic sense of the term. Genetically they were not human. Close enough for us to breed with them, though. However, on the flip side, genetically speaking there is no reason a human and chimpanzee couldn't produce an offspring. We're closely related enough for it to take.
I am not speaking "genetically". If interbreeding was rare, one can only wonder why so many millions of humans carry their genes. This is another example of arbitrary word games , species, sub species, genetically speaking, etc. If it looks like a human, thinks like a human, acts like a human can interbreed with humans, it is a human. Therefore it's genetic makeup is human. Why all the slicing and dicing of essentially convenient man made classification language that really means nothing re whether Neanderthals were human beings ? I seriously, seriously doubt that a monkey/human cross would result in offspring. In fact. I will talk to a vet friend of mine about it, but expect nothing but laughing in response. We'll see. I'll look at other info as well
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I am not speaking "genetically". If interbreeding was rare, one can only wonder why so many millions of humans carry their genes. This is another example of arbitrary word games , species, sub species, genetically speaking, etc. If it looks like a human, thinks like a human, acts like a human can interbreed with humans, it is a human. Therefore it's genetic makeup is human. Why all the slicing and dicing of essentially convenient man made classification language that really means nothing re whether Neanderthals were human beings ? I seriously, seriously doubt that a monkey/human cross would result in offspring. In fact. I will talk to a vet friend of mine about it, but expect nothing but laughing in response. We'll see. I'll look at other info as well

You really do have no understand of genetics do you?

Interbreeding between Neanderthal and proto human took place over half a million year's ago, as stated in the Smithsonian paper i linked to

If all humans can have trace DNA from one woman 100,000 years ago, there is no problem with modern humans having Neanderthal DNA from 500,000 years ago.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
I am not speaking "genetically". If interbreeding was rare, one can only wonder why so many millions of humans carry their genes.
Because there weren't all that many humans until very recently, and the Neanderthal genes would propagate because the human-Neanderthal hybrids would've had children with "pure" humans. These genes would be passed down like any other gene.

This is another example of arbitrary word games , species, sub species, genetically speaking, etc. If it looks like a human, thinks like a human, acts like a human can interbreed with humans, it is a human. Therefore it's genetic makeup is human. Why all the slicing and dicing of essentially convenient man made classification language that really means nothing re whether Neanderthals were human beings ?
The same reason wolves and dogs are considered two different things? They're similar enough to breed together, but morphologically they are obviously quite different. Same with Neanderthals and Homo-sapiens-sapiens.

I seriously, seriously doubt that a monkey/human cross would result in offspring. In fact. I will talk to a vet friend of mine about it, but expect nothing but laughing in response. We'll see. I'll look at other info as well
Genetically speaking we share more of the right chromosomes with chimpanzees than horses do with donkeys. Horses and donkeys can successfully reproduce. There is no reason chimpanzees and humans couldn't. Again, we're far more closely related than many other common hybrid animals.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because there weren't all that many humans until very recently, and the Neanderthal genes would propagate because the human-Neanderthal hybrids would've had children with "pure" humans. These genes would be passed down like any other gene.


The same reason wolves and dogs are considered two different things? They're similar enough to breed together, but morphologically they are obviously quite different. Same with Neanderthals and Homo-sapiens-sapiens.


Genetically speaking we share more of the right chromosomes with chimpanzees than horses do with donkeys. Horses and donkeys can successfully reproduce. There is no reason chimpanzees and humans couldn't. Again, we're far more closely related than many other common hybrid animals.
Over 10% of animals and over 25% of plant species are known to produce fertile hybrids in the wild. It's quite common among ducks
Waterfowl Hybrids
An entire new species of dolphin had arisen by such a hybridization
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/...hybrid-of-two-other-dolphin-species.html?_r=0
Hybridization among fish is very common as well.
 
Top