The Ultimate Explanation

[Big_TJ]

Ok.. I won't say what is being explained just yet But I nevertheless want to ask two questions:

Assuming for a moment that you lived in a city where you have not much access to what's going on in other parts of the world. Then, you travelled to a remote part of some remote forest on an expedition trip and, while there, you suddenly saw a population of approximately 100,000 "things" looking like this:

Again, lets assume (for the moment) that you seeing "them" for the first time and had never heard bout anything this large having 8 limps. My two questions are these:

1) Would you had classified/called the 100,000 6-legged "things" human beings? - a "yes" or " no" answer would be desired.

2) If you would, on what basis would you classified them as "human beings"?

I do have another two questions but they will stem from the response to these first two

 

[MormonChainMonteCarlo]

I would consider them human. Whether or not they are species sapiens depends on if the allele frequency between said population and the human population is noticeable enough to warrant such a splitting

 

[JayJayDee]

Ok.. I won't say what is being explained just yet But I nevertheless want to ask two questions:

Assuming for a moment that you lived in a city where you have not much access to what's going on in other parts of the world. Then, you travelled to a remote part of some remote forest on an expedition trip and, while there, you suddenly saw a population of approximately 100,000 "things" looking like this:

View attachment 10222
Again, lets assume (for the moment) that you seeing "them" for the first time and had never heard bout anything this large having 8 limps. My two questions are these:

1) Would you had classified/called the 100,000 6-legged "things" human beings? - a "yes" or " no" answer would be desired.

Obviously human.......though a terrible genetic abnormality. It has four legs and four arms....not six legs.

2) If you would, on what basis would you classified them as "human beings"?

The human head and upper body would lead me to believe that this was supposed to be twins but something went horribly wrong in their formation in the womb.

Since this kind of abnormality would not reproduce, what is your point? There could not logically be 100,000 of these poor creatures. The mutation is not beneficial for reproduction.

I do have another two questions but they will stem from the response to these first two

Is there a point in asking this in a JW DIR? Where are you going with this?

 

[Pegg]

I dont know if anyone, even a very ignorant uneducated person, would be confused about this. Its a deformity.

Of course it is human... just unfortunately very deformed.

 

[Big_TJ]

I dont know if anyone, even a very ignorant uneducated person, would be confused about this. Its a deformity.

Of course it is human... just unfortunately very deformed.

Thanks Pegg. Can you answer the second part of the question? What features would have led you to conclude that they would be "human beings"?

And, on what basis would you conclude that shape/bone structure of these 100,000 'humans" would be a result of a deformity - seeing that there would be? (incidentally, have you ever heard that a significant deformity like this affects a population of so many? [Just asking]

 

[Big_TJ]

Obviously human.......though a terrible genetic abnormality.

Thanks for your reply JayJay. As I asked Pegg, on what basis would you have concluded that the structure of these 100,000 "humans" are a result of "genetic abnormality" if you were seeing them for the first time?

It has four legs and four arms....not six legs.

If you were seeing "them" for the first time, how would you know how many "arms" and how many "legs" they have? For clarity, Let's just say 8 limbs for now then . And remember, we are not just talking about this one case in India; forget that case for now.

The human head and upper body would lead me to believe that this was supposed to be twins but something went horribly wrong in their formation in the womb.

Agreed with the first part of your statement, but are you saying that each of the 100,000 that you saw were all "supposed to be twin but something went horribly wrong in their formation?" Remember, I am not asking about this one individual; I am asking about the 100,000 that you see.

Since this kind of abnormality would not reproduce, what is your point? There could not logically be 100,000 of these poor creatures. The mutation is not beneficial for reproduction.

REALLY?! What does "the mutation is not beneficial for reproduction" even mean? You perhaps do not have a good grasp on the term "beneficial." You use a very correct term; mutation. I will come back to this term later.

And again, the question I asked is if you saw 100,000 of these creatures (you not knowing about the one known case in India). Even in the case in India, how do you know that the mutation that caused the 8 limbs cannot be passed to her offspring? In other words, if this girl:

and this boy:

.. should meet and fall in love, the ran to the hills (to avoid being teased) and then had children, what would convince you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for their children to also have multiple limbs? And, if their children should also have children (through interbreeding, since they would be in the hills far away from the teasing humans ), what would convince you that their children COULDN'T also have multiple limbs? And if this process continues for the next 100 to 1000 years, what convince you that you it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have population of 100,000 or more of these creatures each having multiple limbs?

Is there a point in asking this in a JW DIR? Where are you going with this?

Yes there is; will get there shortly

 

[Big_TJ]

I would consider them human. Whether or not they are species sapiens depends on if the allele frequency between said population and the human population is noticeable enough to warrant such a splitting

Actually, that was going to be my next question: whether you consider them sapien sapien; you first me

 

[JayJayDee]

Thanks for your reply JayJay. As I asked Pegg, on what basis would you have concluded that the structure of these 100,000 "humans" are a result of "genetic abnormality" if you were seeing them for the first time?

Because physically, they (there is not just one human being in that photo) are obviously not formed like a single human being would or should be.

If you were seeing "them" for the first time, how would you know how many "arms" and how many "legs" they have? For clarity, Let's just say 8 limbs for now then . And remember, we are not just talking about this one case in India; forget that case for now.

Observing that the limbs are arms and legs with feet and hands, I would still conclude four legs and four arms. This is not an eight limbed human, it is a fused set of twins. If you know how genes work, you could not even present this as an example of what you are suggesting.

Agreed with the first part of your statement, but are you saying that each of the 100,000 that you saw were all "supposed to be twin but something went horribly wrong in their formation?" Remember, I am not asking about this one individual; I am asking about the 100,000 that you see.

Since I would never find 100,000 people who looked like this, there is a massive roadblock to where you are trying to take this scenario.

REALLY?! What does "the mutation is not beneficial for reproduction" even mean? You perhaps do not have a good grasp on the term "beneficial."

The mutation was not in the children themselves but in the way these twins formed in the womb of their mother. The cells did not go where they were supposed to because, I would assume, that a toxic environment resulted in faulty coding of the cells early in their formation. They are genetically two separate individuals who did not form as identical twins, but whose bodies instead fused together abnormally. This could not happen with fraternal twins.

And again, the question I asked is if you saw 100,000 of these creatures (you not knowing about the one known case in India). Even in the case in India, how do you know that the mutation that caused the 8 limbs cannot be passed to her offspring? In other words, if this girl:
View attachment 10225

and this boy:
View attachment 10224

.. should meet and fall in love, the ran to the hills (to avoid being teased) and then had children, what would convince you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for their children to also have multiple limbs?

These children do not have multiple limbs. They are two "fused" human beings whose DNA would in all likelihood not be passed on in the extremely unlikely event that you suggest. My guess is that they would not be capable of "running" anywhere. One wonders how they would even survive into adulthood, let alone being able to live independently in the hills, fending for themselves. Do you see that your scenario is unravelling rather rapidly?

And, if their children should also have children (through interbreeding, since they would be in the hills far away from the teasing humans ), what would convince you that their children COULDN'T also have multiple limbs? And if this process continues for the next 100 to 1000 years, what convince you that you it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have population of 100,000 or more of these creatures each having multiple limbs?

This scenario you suggest is ridiculous. The likelihood of this "ever" happening is so astronomical as to be nigh on impossible. Can you demonstrate that this case scenario has "ever" been observed anywhere in the world?
Why not use something that "is" likely to occur to prove your point because in this one you are failing rather miserably so far.

Yes there is; will get there shortly

This should be good.....

 

[Big_TJ]

Because physically, they (there is not just one human being in that photo) are obviously not formed like a single human being would or should be.



Observing that the limbs are arms and legs with feet and hands, I would still conclude four legs and four arms. This is not an eight limbed human, it is a fused set of twins. If you know how genes work, you could not even present this as an example of what you are suggesting.



Since I would never find 100,000 people who looked like this, there is a massive roadblock to where you are trying to make this scenario.



The mutation was not in the children themselves but in the way these twins formed in the womb of their mother. The cells did not go where they were supposed to because, I would assume, that a toxic environment resulted in faulty coding of the cells early in their formation. They are genetically two separate individuals who did not form as identical twins, but whose bodies instead fused together abnormally. This could not happen with fraternal twins.



These children do not have multiple limbs. They are two "fused" human beings whose DNA would in all likelihood not be passed on in the extremely unlikely event that you suggest. My guess is that they would not be capable of "running" anywhere. One wonders how they would even survive into adulthood, let alone being able to live independently in the hills, fending for themselves. Do you see that your scenario is unravelling rather rapidly?



This scenario you suggest is ridiculous. The likelihood of this "ever" happening is so astronomical as to be nigh on impossible. Can you demonstrate that this case scenario has "ever" been observed anywhere in the world?
Why not use something that "is" likely to occur to prove your point because in this one you are failing rather miserably so far.



This should be good.....

JayJay

Can you try to focus a bit? You keep discussing the individual case in India which I am not asking about. You keep mentioning twins and that sort which has nothing to do with my question. I am aware of the India event; if you want to discuss that, can you start a thread?

We see mutation causing several things in humans; human with 6 fingers on each hand, humans with several nipples, etc. I am not sure of your scientific background but, based on some of your posts, I know it is limited. So I am not sure why you think you are absolutely sure that a mutation cannot result in a "human" having extreme abnormalities, including multiple limbs. And there are SO much errors in what you posted that it would probably take me days to correct. However, this has NOTHING to do with my thread.

Again, the question is this: If you saw 100,000 of creatures looking like the picture showed, would you classified them as "humans" and if so, why?

 

[JayJayDee]

Can you try to focus a bit? You keep discussing the individual case in India which I am not asking about. You keep mentioning twins and that sort which has nothing to do with my question. I am aware of the India event; if you want to discuss that, can you start a thread?

Perhaps if you had started this thread with something a bit more real it would have helped. You are suggesting that this is an example of an eight limbed human being capable of reproducing others like itself. In your example there is no evidence that this has ever, or could ever happen. Maybe you should try to focus on something that is not so far fetched, or that has actually happened in real life to prove your point?

We see mutation causing several things in humans; human with 6 fingers on each hand, humans with several nipples, etc.

And what do mutations like those do with regard to someone's ability to reproduce? Absolutely nothing. It does not interfere with their ability to sustain life or to perpetuate their survival. It is simply an abnormality, produced by inbreeding most of the time....something the Bible forbids actually.

I am not sure of your scientific background but, based on some of your posts, I know it is limited. So I am not sure why you think you are absolutely sure that a mutation cannot result in a "human" having multiple limbs.

Give us some real case scenarios and we might have something to discuss....the scenario you provided is not real and has never happened. Tell me the point in pursuing it. This is what evolutionists are good at...talking about fantasy as if it's fact.

And there area SO much errors in what you posted that it would probably take me days to correct. However, this has NOTHING to do with this trend.

Actually your scenario has nothing to do with real life. Perhaps that is a correction for you?

Again, the question is this: If you saw 100,000 of creatures looking like the picture showed, would you classified them as "humans" and if so, why?

Already answered. There is NO possibility of seeing 100,000 of such people because of the reasons already stated.

Why persist with a ridiculous proposal to begin with? Choose something real.

 

[Pegg]

Thanks Pegg. Can you answer the second part of the question? What features would have led you to conclude that they would be "human beings"?

And, on what basis would you conclude that shape/bone structure of these 100,000 'humans" would be a result of a deformity - seeing that there would be? (incidentally, have you ever heard that a significant deformity like this affects a population of so many? [Just asking]

probably the human face, head, ears, eyes, arms, hands, legs, skin.... its all human. What I would base the deformity on depends on a few things... what is the environment like where these people live? Is there nuclear waste nearby, have they been poisoned by radioactive material in their drinking water, have their parents been affected by some type of pollutant? Something is causing the deformity...if there are that many people with the same deformity, the authorities should be investigating the environment.

 

[Big_TJ]

Perhaps if you had started this thread with something a bit more real it would have helped. You are suggesting that this is an example of an eight limbed human being capable of reproducing others like itself. In your example there is no evidence that this has ever, or could ever happen. Maybe you should try to focus on something that is not so far fetched, or that has actually happened in real life to prove your point?

I'm sorry, but where did I suggest "that this is an example of an eight limb human being capable of reproducing others like itself?" As I asked before, stay focus - I have never suggested anything like that.

And what do mutations like those do with regard to someone's ability to reproduce? Absolutely nothing. It does not interfere with their ability to sustain life or to perpetuate their survival. It is simply an abnormality, produced by inbreeding most of the time....something the Bible forbids actually.

Apart from this being a ridiculous statement, what does this has to do with the thread?

Give us some real case scenarios and we might have something to discuss....the scenario you provided is not real and has never happened. Tell me the point in pursuing it. This is what evolutionists are good at...talking about fantasy as if it's fact.

And why isn't this a real case situation?? Scientists discover weird-looking creatures and animals all the time. Since you are clearly oblivious to the thread, what I am simply asking is this: If you should go to a remote location and discover a large amount of weird-looking creatures that looks like humans and hoddle around on 8 limbs, would you call them human (and why). I am sorry, but I cannot dumb down the question anymore. I am lost as to why you cannot understand this.

Already answered. There is NO possibility of seeing 100,000 of such people because of the reasons already stated.

This is an answer to a question that was never asked.. No where in my thread I asked about seeing 100,000 people.

Why persist with a ridiculous proposal to begin with? Choose something real.

If you read the replies to the thread, you are the ONLY person that is lost; perhaps you should question your level of understanding rather than the thread? Just a thought.

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm sorry, but where did I suggest "that this is an example of an eight limb human being capable of reproducing others like itself?" As I asked before, stay focus - I have never suggested anything like that.

Apart from this being a ridiculous statement, what does this has to do with the thread?

I can't imagine.

And why isn't this a real case situation?? Scientists discover weird-looking creatures and animals all the time. Since you are clearly oblivious to the thread, what I am simply asking is this: If you should go to a remote location and discover a large amount of weird-looking creatures that looks like humans and hoddle around on 8 limbs, would you call them human (and why). I am sorry, but I cannot dumb down the question anymore. I am lost as to why you cannot understand this.

Why isn't this a real case situation???? Are you serious?
The question didn't need "dumbing down".....it was already dumb to begin with. Your scenario is entirely based on what? Something real? Or an overactive imagination?

This is an answer to a question that was never asked.. No where in my thread I asked about seeing 100,000 people.

Good grief. Read your OP again.

If you read the replies to the thread, you are the ONLY person that is lost; perhaps you should question your level of understanding rather than the thread? Just a thought.

Perhaps if you had begun the thread with the intent of your question made plain in the first place, there would be no confusion. Was it intended to be a clever question?

Forgive me if if I smelled a rat from the get go. I believe the intent was not well intentioned. Why post a question like that in a JW DIR?

If there is a point to this thread that isn't leading into a trap that you seem intent on setting, then I will continue with this line of reasoning until you make it evident where you are going with this whole scenario.

Everything you have suggested thus far is ridiculous. All fictitious...why? The pictures you have provided are not genetically altered human beings, capable of reproducing...they are are malformed twins. Their genetics would not produce other humans like themselves. Their DNA is not at fault......many genetic abnormalities are not passed on but are only malformations in that particular person or in the cases cited, are in all probability environmentally produced by the activities of man. (Exposure to radio-active materials, toxic poisons etc)

So be honest. What was the intent of the OP?

 

[Shiranui117]

Not JW, so I'm technically not supposed to be posting what I'm about to, but this thread is so... Err, what's a nice way to put this... ill-conceived, I hope the good folks here won't mind.

REALLY?! What does "the mutation is not beneficial for reproduction" even mean? You perhaps do not have a good grasp on the term "beneficial." You use a very correct term; mutation. I will come back to this term later.

It means that this is a mutation that will greatly hinder the affected person's chances of producing offspring, let alone surviving. I highly, highly doubt a person with such deformities as you have posited would survive more than a few months before dying without extreme corrective surgery. Also, if you take more than half a glance at the picture you've posted, the deformities possessed by those infants would clearly not lend themselves to an easy time of performing sexual intercourse.

And again, the question I asked is if you saw 100,000 of these creatures (you not knowing about the one known case in India). Even in the case in India, how do you know that the mutation that caused the 8 limbs cannot be passed to her offspring? In other words, if this girl:
View attachment 10225

and this boy:
View attachment 10224

.. should meet and fall in love, the ran to the hills (to avoid being teased) and then had children, what would convince you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for their children to also have multiple limbs? And, if their children should also have children (through interbreeding, since they would be in the hills far away from the teasing humans ), what would convince you that their children COULDN'T also have multiple limbs? And if this process continues for the next 100 to 1000 years, what convince you that you it would be IMPOSSIBLE to have population of 100,000 or more of these creatures each having multiple limbs?

Your biggest mistake here is assuming that these people would be capable of reproducing, let alone "running to the hills", let alone finding someone else with their same mutation (I'm guessing this mutation is a 1 in 100,000 chance, to be generous), let alone living long enough to do all of this in the first place. The entire premise of this thread is so completely ridiculous, I'm surprised I'm even taking the time to respond to it.

 

[Big_TJ]

probably the human face, head, ears, eyes, arms, hands, legs, skin.... its all human. What I would base the deformity on depends on a few things... what is the environment like where these people live? Is there nuclear waste nearby, have they been poisoned by radioactive material in their drinking water, have their parents been affected by some type of pollutant? Something is causing the deformity...if there are that many people with the same deformity, the authorities should be investigating the environment.

Great... Good answer. Now compare that answer a slight twist of my original question:

Assuming for a moment that you lived in a city where you have not much access to what's going on in other parts of the world. Then, you travelled to a remote part of some remote forest scientist shows you 10 of these fossils and told you that these are skeletal of humans.

(Again, forget that you knew anything about India; assuming) Would you agree? If so, why?

 

[Big_TJ]

Good grief. Read your OP again.

I think this statement from you is enough to convince me that either you severely lack understanding or is just playing silly. In my OP, I mentioned if you saw 100,000 creatures and asked if you would classify them as "humans." NO WHERE DID I ASKED ABOUT 100,000 PEOPLE.

Perhaps if you had begun the thread with the intent of your question made plain in the first place, there would be no confusion. Was it intended to be a clever question?

Forgive me if if I smelled a rat from the get go. I believe the intent was not well intentioned. Why post a question like that in a JW DIR?

If there is a point to this thread that isn't leading into a trap that you seem intent on setting, then I will continue with this line of reasoning until you make it evident where you are going with this whole scenario.

Everything you have suggested thus far is ridiculous. All fictitious...why? The pictures you have provided are not genetically altered human beings, capable of reproducing...they are are malformed twins. Their genetics would not produce other humans like themselves. Their DNA is not at fault......many genetic abnormalities are not passed on but are only malformations in that particular person or in the cases cited, are in all probability environmentally produced by the activities of man. (Exposure to radio-active materials, toxic poisons etc)

So be honest. What was the intent of the OP?

You know, I am not aware of any RF rules that stipulate that anyone MUST participate in a thread simply because it's in a particular DIR. Feel free to exercise your right not to participate

 

[Big_TJ]

Your biggest mistake here is assuming that these people would be capable of reproducing, let alone "running to the hills", let alone finding someone else with their same mutation (I'm guessing this mutation is a 1 in 100,000 chance, to be generous), let alone living long enough to do all of this in the first place. The entire premise of this thread is so completely ridiculous, I'm surprised I'm even taking the time to respond to it.

Shiranui

You are making the same mistake as JayJay (I am still wondering if you guys read the OP). What I originally asked, essentially, was this:

"If you went to some remote area and saw a 100,000 weird-looking creatures (note.. I did not say humans or people) with some human-looking features but clearly have some other features that does not look human-like, would you classify them as "humans" and, if so, why."


You are also repeating the completely silly and uninformed claim originally made by JayJay that they couldn't "reproduce" or "run to the hills" which is a bit ridiculous. Let me point out why they are ridiculous claims:

1) You would be assuming that these creatures are "humans" and that their condition was a result of some deformity. (Perhaps this assumption is based on the cases that we are aware of like in India; which I specifically state we should forget). In other words, we are assuming that they are not different, previously undiscovered species of homo, a species for which their multiple limbs are totally natural to them.

2) EVEN if they were "humans" as we know, Jay Jay is claiming that the twin deformity couldn't be passed down. If he/she had done any cursory research on genes and twins, s/he would have seen two things: 1) there are aspects of "twins" that can be passed on by genes (see hype-ovulation and fraternity twins, for example) - I wouldn't tell Jay Jay to research this as s/he would simply look in an Awake! to see what s/he find - that's not scientific researching.

3) EVEN if they are humans (like the case in India and Pakistan), NO ONE KNOWS why these cases occurs - in fact, the reason why [not HOW] twins occur is still not known. So, the ridiculous claim that we know that we will "never see 100,000 people like these" is extremely baseless. The fact that we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it is impossible to see this in the next 100 to the next 10000 years.

Then you added this portion of your post:

let alone finding someone else with their same mutation (I'm guessing this mutation is a 1 in 100,000 chance, to be generous),

Again, a completely uninformed comment. As with Jay, you are missing an important point: fraternal twins are not only genetic, but the genes is passed through the mother ONLY. Therefore, contrary to your point, there's no need for the female (as in the case of the child in India) to "find someone else with the same mutation". She can mate with any "normal" male and her offspring can be twins. If the reason for the twins not properly separated is genetic (which is not presently known by science) and is passed on, then, it is possible (may be even likely) that Lakshimi (the kid in India) could produce a similarly deformed "twin" when she has a child (I guess we just have to wait and see).

Again, all of these are only important if you guys are changing the question of the thread. The question I asked was about seeing some strange-looking creatures, not some strange-looking humans.

 

[Kolibri]

According to our understanding, humans are a "kind" of living creature made out of flesh that can successfully and consistently reproduce within the same broad kind as the rest of humanity.

What makes humans unique among creatures made of flesh is their capacity to develop principled love.

"Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, .... And God went on to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:26,27

"Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:8.

This love is the Greek agape. In some respects the Greek language is more precise than English. They have 4 basic words for love instead of our one. This particular one carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It is not ruled by sentiment though it can include it.

Humans are the only kind of fleshly creature that is scriptually identified as being made in God's image. Since macro-evolution is not supported by scripture, and only humans have been identified as flesh made in God's image, it would be totally unexpected and highly improbable another reproductively-contained life-form made from the earth can be found that shows the capacity for this specific type of love.

 

[Big_TJ]

According to our understanding, humans are a "kind" of living creature made out of flesh that can successfully and consistently reproduce within the same broad kind as the rest of humanity.

What makes humans unique among creatures made of flesh is their capacity to develop principled love.

"Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, .... And God went on to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them." - Genesis 1:26,27

"Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:8.

This love is the Greek agape. In some respects the Greek language is more precise than English. They have 4 basic words for love instead of our one. This particular one carries the meaning of love guided, or governed, by principle. It is not ruled by sentiment though it can include it.

Humans are the only kind of fleshly creature that is scriptually identified as being made in God's image. Since macro-evolution is not supported by scripture, and only humans have been identified as flesh made in God's image, it would be totally unexpected and highly improbable another reproductively-contained life-form made from the earth can be found that shows the capacity for this specific type of love.

Thanks for your telling your understanding of "human." So, as I asked Pegg, if you were to find 10 fossil of this in the past, would you consider this a fossil of a "human" and why (if you would).

 

[Kolibri]

I am only vaguely aware of this photo, and I am not an anthropologist. (Is that the right field of study?) But going on the photo alone and what is generally found in the world around me to looks like how it is labeled - 2 conjoined twins whereby one never fully developed. Does it match what is the norm for humans after reason dictates to ignore the undeveloped twin? Or does the skeleton have more in harmony with another bipedal kind of flesh? I am not qualified to answer that. But lets say that those that study bones say that, yes, this matches what is common for humans. Then I would probably except that evaluation because I would have no reason not to.

If 10 examples of these was found in fossils, I would probably be searching for ways in which the environment was severely out of balance in that area, before even considering that this was just a variation of the norm. It does not look particularly viable to me.