Dancing_Queen
Member
I guess it depends upon how you define "limited understanding." We know a tremendous amount; but, like everything else in all of the sciences, we keep learning.
New Species of Human Discovered
- Thread starter fmdog44
- Start date
Dancing_Queen
Member
Of course, you have to believe that the bible is the absolute word of god to believe such things. Some people do but the vast majority of people don't.
Dancing_Queen
Member
Afraid not, Elsie. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens lived during the same period and had to have interbred. That's why people of non-African extraction have some Neanderthal genes.Must be then that neanderthals are not extinct afterall.
“While much of the genetic diversity discussed above came from inactive, noncoding, or otherwise evolutionarily neutral segments of the genome, there are many sites that show clear evidence of selective pressure on the variations between modern humans and Neanderthals. Researchers found 78 loci at which Neanderthals had an ancestral state and modern humans had a newer, derived state (Green et al 2010). Five of these genes had more than one sequence change that affected the protein structure. These proteins include SPAG17, which is involved in the movement of sperm, PCD16, which may be involved in wound healing, TTF1, which is involved in ribosomal gene transcription, and RPTN, which is found in the skin, hair and sweat glands. Other changes may not alter the sequence of the gene itself, but alter the factors that control that gene’s replication in the cell, changing its expression secondarily.”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenc...and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes
Afraid not, Elsie.Must be then that neanderthals are not extinct afterall.
Neanderthals interbred with Sapiens and died out. Here's what we probably got from them:“While much of the genetic diversity discussed above came from inactive, noncoding, or otherwise evolutionarily neutral segments of the genome, there are many sites that show clear evidence of selective pressure on the variations between modern humans and Neanderthals. Researchers found 78 loci at which Neanderthals had an ancestral state and modern humans had a newer, derived state (Green et al 2010). Five of these genes had more than one sequence change that affected the protein structure. These proteins include SPAG17, which is involved in the movement of sperm, PCD16, which may be involved in wound healing, TTF1, which is involved in ribosomal gene transcription, and RPTN, which is found in the skin, hair and sweat glands. Other changes may not alter the sequence of the gene itself, but alter the factors that control that gene’s replication in the cell, changing its expression secondarily.”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenc...and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes
fmdog44
Well-known Member
- Location
- Houston, Texas
Earth is 2,000 years old and created in six days according to the Bible. How come we never see tours of science museums by religious groups?
Dancing_Queen
Member
Chimps and bonobos and Homo sapiens share 99% DNA.Have modern day apes been tested for "human" DNA? No surprise if ape DNA and human DNA possibly have a similarity, but that would not mean any more than a just similarity. Many animals' behavior are "human-like" but, as far as I know, few have shown the intelligence to learn more than just to mimic human behavior.
Colleen, did your ex-husband act tough by loudly grunting and beating his chest?
“Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives
Dancing_Queen
Member
I'm sorry for the duplication above. I don't know how it happened and don't have the ability to edit it. I know how to edit, but that's missing in the above post.
Knight
Well-known Member
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess most people don't believe Noah & his family were chosen to keep what that billions of years old supernatural being created. Probably the various DNA strains not possible if there was only one source. But doubters only need to go to Hebrews 11:7 to read the truth that a single source was Noah. Does make a person wonder how that could be though.
Then there is this that kind of makes the Noah story less than credible but ya gotta have faith in something.
https://www.history.com/news/dna-study-finds-aboriginal-australians-worlds-oldest-civilization
Oris Borloff
Member
As seen on a T-shirt
"Humans and bananas share 60% of the same DNA--Get over yourself."
"Humans and bananas share 60% of the same DNA--Get over yourself."
horseless carriage
Well-known Member
Bones being dug up prompted a reminisce of a cartoon by a 16 year old boy.
The discovery of the bones of Richard the Third in a Leicester car park prompted this:
That would mean the earth was created after the life of Jesus!
I think you meant to say 5,000 years, fmdog. (Not that that makes any more sense than 2,000.)
The religious extremists still stubbornly clinging to the ignorant presumptions they were taught as children would of course not go anywhere near a science museum. That might make them think! Above all, the anti-science folks are scared to death of thinking, analysis, logical conclusions based on provable evidence, etc. They find comfort in shutting their minds to reality and believing what they have been told to believe.
And that applies to human evolution, anti-Covid vaccines, and everything else.
Elsie
Senior Member
A science museum holds proof of God's creations. God made finds that scientists, who, when they find them, think, "Eureka!! signs of evolution." Not.
I think science museums are interesting.
Dancing_Queen
Member
You have to believe it's the truth. I, for one, don't. And I'll go out on a limb and bet I'm not the only one here who doesn't.
I have faith in a lot of things, but not in either the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament (any version) or the New Testament (any version).
Dancing_Queen
Member
Again, you have to believe that these are proofs of god's existence; I don't see it that way.A science museum holds proof of God's creations. God made finds that scientists, who, when they find them, think, "Eureka!! signs of evolution." Not.
Knight
Well-known Member
What would it take to convince you that a supernatural being billions of years old watches over at the latest estimate of 7.9 billion people & their everyday life choices?
Isn't that Facebook???
RadishRose
SF VIP
- Location
- Connecticut, USA
I need to go back to school......Afraid not, Elsie. Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens lived during the same period and had to have interbred. That's why people of non-African extraction have some Neanderthal genes.
“While much of the genetic diversity discussed above came from inactive, noncoding, or otherwise evolutionarily neutral segments of the genome, there are many sites that show clear evidence of selective pressure on the variations between modern humans and Neanderthals. Researchers found 78 loci at which Neanderthals had an ancestral state and modern humans had a newer, derived state (Green et al 2010). Five of these genes had more than one sequence change that affected the protein structure. These proteins include SPAG17, which is involved in the movement of sperm, PCD16, which may be involved in wound healing, TTF1, which is involved in ribosomal gene transcription, and RPTN, which is found in the skin, hair and sweat glands. Other changes may not alter the sequence of the gene itself, but alter the factors that control that gene’s replication in the cell, changing its expression secondarily.”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenc...and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes
Afraid not, Elsie.
“While much of the genetic diversity discussed above came from inactive, noncoding, or otherwise evolutionarily neutral segments of the genome, there are many sites that show clear evidence of selective pressure on the variations between modern humans and Neanderthals. Researchers found 78 loci at which Neanderthals had an ancestral state and modern humans had a newer, derived state (Green et al 2010). Five of these genes had more than one sequence change that affected the protein structure. These proteins include SPAG17, which is involved in the movement of sperm, PCD16, which may be involved in wound healing, TTF1, which is involved in ribosomal gene transcription, and RPTN, which is found in the skin, hair and sweat glands. Other changes may not alter the sequence of the gene itself, but alter the factors that control that gene’s replication in the cell, changing its expression secondarily.”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenc...and-neanderthals/dna-genotypes-and-phenotypes
Knight
Well-known Member
Maybe a surrogate since watching what everyone of the 7.9 billion do everyday could get difficult. But that's just my mortal thinking those with blind faith know that the supernatural creator billions of years old is up to the task.
fmdog44
Well-known Member
- Location
- Houston, Texas
In Africa there is are mice that share its DNA with elephants. Put that in your pipe!
Knight
Well-known Member
AHA!!! That explains how thousands of animals were housed, fed & kept alive on the Ark. Miniaturization
fmdog44
Well-known Member
- Location
- Houston, Texas
2,000, 5,000 in application it is BS.
Dancing_Queen
Member
What would it take to convince you that one doesn't?
I've read all (or, maybe, most) of the philosophical arguments for and against; none of them on either side is convincing. The ones "for" aren't convincing and, as for the ones "against," you can't prove a negative. It comes down to a matter of faith. I have faith in the non-existence of such a thing. I see absolutely no reason for it and quite a few reasons why such a thing would have been invented.
Dancing_Queen
Member
We all share DNA to one extent or another with all plants and animals, etc. living and extinct.
http://www.dnaftb.org/40/
Elsie
Senior Member
Does the Bible mention prehistoric men such as cavemen or Neanderthals?
"Caveman" is a general name used to encompass several groups of fossils including Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, Homo-Erectus, Denisovans, and Homo floresiensis (also known as "hobbits"). Scientists have to make assumptions as to their characteristics based on fossils, bones, and artifacts found near them, so there are a lot of "maybes" and "possibly" associated with any discussion. Another problem is that secular scientists and Young Earth Christian scientists see the evidence through two very different worldviews. Secular scientists believe humans evolved through a progression of creatures from ape to modern man. Young-earth creationists believe God created everything — ape and man — within the six days of creation. To the former, cavemen are a step to us; to the creationist, they are us.Neanderthal is the name given to a type of fossil found mostly in Europe, with a few outliers in Central Asia and across Africa. From their bones, we know they had a pronounced brow, a large cranial cavity, and a short, stocky frame. Their remains are mostly found in caves (whether because most of them lived in caves or because caves are particularly suited for preserving bone, we don't know), giving them the nickname "cavemen." In secular science, there is debate as to where they belong. Some call them another species in the genus Homo and claim they are either an evolutionary step between apes and humans or a dead-end offshoot of advanced apes. Others, including Christian scientists, consider them to be another ethnicity of Homo sapiens (Homo sapien neanderthalensis — Humans, by contrast, are scientifically classified as Homo sapien sapien).
Neanderthals have a storied past in Christian culture. For a while, they were vehemently denied. Then they were postulated to have been humans afflicted with a bone disease. Now they're generally accepted as another ethnicity of human. In fact, it may be that young-earth creationists were quicker to accept Neanderthals as human than evolutionists. Today, Christian scientists agree that they were a tribe of people who dispersed after Babel, but there is discussion about why Neanderthals have such a distinctive appearance. Some hold to micro-evolutionary changes caused by limited sunlight, poor diet, and/or disease (including rickets, arthritis, and syphilis). Others speculate the pronounced forehead and large brain capacity were related to their very long lives. It also isn't known why Neanderthals disappeared. They may have interbred with other tribes, or they may not have been able to adapt to the post-Flood Ice Age and subsequent thaw.
Cro-Magnon are thought, by evolutionists, to be a step behind Neanderthals, although their skeletal structure is mostly like ours, with a few nods to Neanderthals such as a stocky build and a larger head. In reality, the evidence could also say that modern-like humans, Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthals lived at the same time and interbred to derive such variety.
Denisovans is another group, identified by a chip of a finger bone found in the Denisova Cave in Siberia. A DNA analysis was done which found very few differences between the girl to which the bone belonged and Neanderthals. Creation scientists see no reason to believe "Denisova" is anything than another tribe of human; their DNA markers indicate they migrated east, and contributed to the genetic makeup of people in India and Australia.
Homo floresiensis, also nicknamed "hobbits," are unique because of their size. They stood about three feet tall, with proportionately small heads. Initially, some thought they might have microcephaly, which doesn't allow the brain to fully form, but this has since been refuted. On the basis of their skull size alone, evolutionary scientists claimed they were another dead-end stub of human evolution, but creationists believe they were just small people. Their fossils are only found on an island in Indonesia; such a restricted area could have resulted in the incest and micro-evolution that resulted in their size.
The Bible gives no mention of a tribe or tribes that resemble cavemen, but the Bible doesn't dwell on physical appearance too much, anyway, unless the person was unusually tall. Neanderthals might have been at the Tower of Babel, and they might have left earlier. Most likely, Denisovans were just a tribe that lived north of the Neanderthals and headed east. We don't know why "cavemen" went extinct or what place they had in history. We don't know why they looked like they did. We don't know if they had long lifespans or short. Or if they were diseased. Or if they disappeared because they mated into other human tribes.
It's just interesting to note that the more scientists study the remains of "cavemen," the more they seem like us. They may look different when illustrators give them dark, gorilla-like skin and wild hair, but it doesn't mean they were different. Noah's family had the genes to give us everything from the pale skin of Scandinavia to the short height of Pygmies to the deep brow of Australian Aborigines. There's no reason to think there weren't also other extreme body shapes that integrated into the human race.
Dancing_Queen
Member
Where did you copy what part of this from, please, Elsie? And what part is your value-added? Thank you.
I'm also wondering where this idea of "tribe" came from. Any scientist worth his salt will call the various types of humans "species." A "tribe" in biology is above "genus," but all humans are the same genus -- "Homo." A tribe in sociology is a group of people who are linked by blood ties and share a culture. However, they're all Homo sapiens. Further, H. sapiens is the only surviving member of H. sapiens sapiens.
Can you please clarify?
Nathan
SF VIP
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
Yes! There is absolutely no conflict with creation and evolution, except in the minds of the unobservant or those crippled by dogma.A science museum holds proof of God's creations. God made finds that scientists, who, when they find them, think, "Eureka!! signs of evolution." Not.