(May 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 4 millions years ago? Really?! Are you sure you read right?

That’s not what I believe, but yes that’s the highest estimate I have seen for the origin of man, it is a wide range though depending upon what you read. You’re right though, most Darwinists put it around 250,000 years.

Quote: Why A10 can't mate with A1? because its genetics became sufficiently different for incompatibilities to appear in the DNA... or something like that.

But I thought we were only changing beaks? Shouldn’t the rest of the genes remain very similar and compatible?

Quote: The first homo sapiens would have been able to mate with the population that gave birth to it. The homo sapiens traits simply gave it an edge that enabled its offspring to be more successful turning some genetic features of the previous population recessive, while the homo sapiens' became dominant.

I think we’re really stretching at the definition of a species here, but ok.

Quote: I read somewhere that some people still have, nowadays, neanderthal genes running around.... recessive that have no influence, but they're still there.

Yes, but that really demonstrates that the Neanderthals were really just Humans right? I believe this is supported by the mapping of the Neanderthal genome recently conducted (which also interestingly concluded that Neanderthals and Humans interbred after Humans moved out of Africa).

(May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: That's because no species (or race if we're talking about humans) is 'more evolved' than another species/race.

Would you say that homo sapiens are 'more evolved' than fish? Of course not (try living underwater without equipment). Evolution is about adaption to the environment, not about being more evolved than another species that may or may not exist in a varying habitat.

I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?

As a farm boy all I know is that if horses breed with donkeys you get mules. And mules are sterile.

Red becomes violet as a light wave shortens. Show me exactly where red ends and violet begins.

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: That's because no species (or race if we're talking about humans) is 'more evolved' than another species/race.

Would you say that homo sapiens are 'more evolved' than fish? Of course not (try living underwater without equipment). Evolution is about adaption to the environment, not about being more evolved than another species that may or may not exist in a varying habitat.

I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?

It's an interesting example, and admittedly, I'm not an evolutionary biologist. But I would also say there are physical changes, certainly, that can be identified that show subtle differences in different races around the planet. Indo-Chinese folk tend to be shorter than Africans or Europeans for example. I can't cite what environmental factors have led to this change, but this is an interesting article that highlights the genetic links between different races of homo sapien that exist both historically and today: http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnat...nities.pdf

I can't comment on the aborigines but I can cite examples of other tribes that have, for the lack of a better description, have become isolated and adapted to their environment better. This was a TV programme on the BBC a while back that looked at various human tribes living around the world in various environments:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00llpvp not sure if you'll be able to watch it but I seriously recommend it if you ever come across it, its pretty amazing if just for the camera work. One part stands out in my memory:





For one episode they followed a Polynesian/ Philippino tribe called the Bajau. They exist almost exclusively on the sea, and have done so for several generations, living in small shacks or stilted huts that are built on archipelagos around Indo-china and further out.

Many of their hunters can dive down to 20 meters, without equipment, for several minutes at a time. Their hunters have adapted over several generations to effectively create their own negative buoyancy, to regulate their own heart beat and slow it down manually almost at a whim. Now of course it is technically feasible for anyone anywhere to do this, but its an example of where the environment these folk live in has created a necessity to adapt if they want to continue to exist in that environment, and I think you'll agree, they've adapted quite well it seems.

That documentary has several example of where tribes have adapted to their environment and the living conditions they face extremely well, to the point where people living in other environments in the world could not survive without the aid of technology. Another obvious example not on the BBC documentary is people living at high altitude, such as the Sherpas, who have adapted perfectly to be able to live in low oxygen atmospheres.

I do also stand by my point that one species/people cannot be more evolved than another. It is entirely about adaption and survival.

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm)pocaracas Wrote: 4 millions years ago? Really?! Are you sure you read right?

That’s not what I believe, but yes that’s the highest estimate I have seen for the origin of man, it is a wide range though depending upon what you read. You’re right though, most Darwinists put it around 250,000 years.

It's never a clear cut date... as I've said, it's a process that takes a lot of time...
And they determine different species through different fossils, which I assume to be a very tricky business... because you have to account for age, deformations during the fossilization process, incomplete fossils, no DNA....

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Why A10 can't mate with A1? because its genetics became sufficiently different for incompatibilities to appear in the DNA... or something like that.

But I thought we were only changing beaks? Shouldn’t the rest of the genes remain very similar and compatible?

It's never just one thing, is it?
The idea is that, at some point, there is sufficient genetic change that these individuals are incompatible with the original ones.

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: The first homo sapiens would have been able to mate with the population that gave birth to it. The homo sapiens traits simply gave it an edge that enabled its offspring to be more successful turning some genetic features of the previous population recessive, while the homo sapiens' became dominant.

I think we’re really stretching at the definition of a species here, but ok.

Perhaps you're right... but that's how I see the process going.
Perhaps I'm wrong... as I've stated, I'm no biologist, so my view is based on high-school science class and a few documentaries... not exactly an expert, am I?

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: I read somewhere that some people still have, nowadays, neanderthal genes running around.... recessive that have no influence, but they're still there.

Yes, but that really demonstrates that the Neanderthals were really just Humans right? I believe this is supported by the mapping of the Neanderthal genome recently conducted (which also interestingly concluded that Neanderthals and Humans interbred after Humans moved out of Africa).

Weren't we stretching the definition of species?

I've looked at this list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...on_fossils
and I see neandertals at about 250 thousand years ago, so it roughly matches with homo sapiens, so it makes sense that they would be compatible.
It would also make sense that homo sapiens be compatible with homo erectus, but not with homo habilis, while homo erectus would be compatible with homo habilis.
Of course, they are all extinct, so we can't really check. Only guess... unless anyone here knows about some DNA from these extinct species.

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: That's because no species (or race if we're talking about humans) is 'more evolved' than another species/race.

Would you say that homo sapiens are 'more evolved' than fish? Of course not (try living underwater without equipment). Evolution is about adaption to the environment, not about being more evolved than another species that may or may not exist in a varying habitat.

I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?

Snapshots may not exist... all groups kept evolving to the changing environment....
Although, all humans (not at the same time) have adapted the environment to themselves, so I'd accept that for the past few hundreds of years we stopped evolving.

(May 10, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I realize what you’re saying but I think it’s in error. Many people groups would have kept progressing as others were frozen in time so to speak. According to Darwinian Theory Aboriginals should be a snap shot of what other people groups in Asia and Europe looked like thousands of years ago because the Aboriginals are essentially still living in the Stone Age. Yet, genetically and mentally there’s no significant difference between Aboriginals and say Europeans; so even though the two groups have experienced thousands of years of genetic isolation and completely different selective pressures apparently no actual Evolution has taken place. Thoughts?

Obviously there was no pressure to develop significant differences. The theory does not say there must be change. Humans have been around between 120 and 200 thousand years. For all but the last 6000 everyone was hunter-gatherer as Australoids were H-G. That is hardly time for a difference between Australoid and the rest to develop. Beyond that it is not clear what genetic differences farming might have lead to if industrialization had not replaced it.

However if you insist upon change look to the skin color of the Amerinds found only in the New World. While that is most likely due to the characteristics of a small group crossing over it could also be the skin color of all Asians of 17,000 years ago. In that case Chinese/Oriental skin color would be the change from Amerind color.

In any event the Australoid skin color is almost certainly the original out of Africa color but there is disagreement there also as with everything else.

If you want to take it further it was only between 15 and 12 thousand years ago that Australia became isolated by rising sea level at the end of the ice age. Before that there was dry land almost all the way from SE Asia to Australia. There were no great sea voyages. They walked almost all the way. So there really has not been much more isolation than for Amerinds.

Is there anything else?

(May 11, 2013 at 1:25 am)Ryantology Wrote: Red becomes violet as a light wave shortens. Show me exactly where red ends and violet begins.

That’s a faulty analogy because the spectrum of life on Earth has never been observed to be a gradual distinction, but rather very classifiable. What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.

(May 11, 2013 at 4:56 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

---

It's an interesting example, and admittedly, I'm not an evolutionary biologist. But I would also say there are physical changes, certainly, that can be identified that show subtle differences in different races around the planet. Indo-Chinese folk tend to be shorter than Africans or Europeans for example. I can't cite what environmental factors have led to this change, but this is an interesting article that highlights the genetic links between different races of homo sapien that exist both historically and today: http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnat...nities.pdf

I can't comment on the aborigines but I can cite examples of other tribes that have, for the lack of a better description, have become isolated and adapted to their environment better. This was a TV programme on the BBC a while back that looked at various human tribes living around the world in various environments:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00llpvp not sure if you'll be able to watch it but I seriously recommend it if you ever come across it, its pretty amazing if just for the camera work. One part stands out in my memory:





For one episode they followed a Polynesian/ Philippino tribe called the Bajau. They exist almost exclusively on the sea, and have done so for several generations, living in small shacks or stilted huts that are built on archipelagos around Indo-china and further out.

Many of their hunters can dive down to 20 meters, without equipment, for several minutes at a time. Their hunters have adapted over several generations to effectively create their own negative buoyancy, to regulate their own heart beat and slow it down manually almost at a whim. Now of course it is technically feasible for anyone anywhere to do this, but its an example of where the environment these folk live in has created a necessity to adapt if they want to continue to exist in that environment, and I think you'll agree, they've adapted quite well it seems.

That documentary has several example of where tribes have adapted to their environment and the living conditions they face extremely well, to the point where people living in other environments in the world could not survive without the aid of technology. Another obvious example not on the BBC documentary is people living at high altitude, such as the Sherpas, who have adapted perfectly to be able to live in low oxygen atmospheres.

I do also stand by my point that one species/people cannot be more evolved than another. It is entirely about adaption and survival.

---

Thanks for the interesting response! Yes, I am not saying that we do not see differences in races of people based upon where they live, all creationists agree that happens. I am just not getting how you go from that observable fact to the claim, “therefore all life on Earth came from one common ancestor.” That seems like the old fallacy of extrapolation. If the different kinds of animals were created as the Bible says they were and then species developed through the years within their Biblical kind we would still expect to see such changes right? It seems like the data actually supports both theories.

I read a paper a few years ago where the genetic match for an organ transplant was actually between an Irish man and an Aboriginal man. So here you have two people groups that have been separated by supposedly 40,000 years and they are still so genetically similar that they are organ transplant matches? There are some siblings that are not similar enough to do organ transplants. It just doesn’t seem to add up.

(May 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And they determine different species through different fossils, which I assume to be a very tricky business... because you have to account for age, deformations during the fossilization process, incomplete fossils, no DNA....

It always seems to come back to the fossils. :-P So would you concede that if the fossil “record” is not truly a record of death and burial over long periods of time then the whole Evolutionary paradigm dies?

Quote:It's never just one thing, is it?
The idea is that, at some point, there is sufficient genetic change that these individuals are incompatible with the original ones.

That should involve other selective pressures though, and there really are not many different selective pressures from one island to the next, those ecosystems are very similar. This just seems like storytelling to me, I totally agree that you can get different beak sizes and shapes, but I do not see how that gives you anything other than a Finch with a different beak. Bulldogs and Great Danes are still both dogs you know.

Quote: Perhaps you're right... but that's how I see the process going.
Perhaps I'm wrong... as I've stated, I'm no biologist, so my view is based on high-school science class and a few documentaries... not exactly an expert, am I?

No, I think you’re explaining it right, I just have never thought the explanation quite added up.

Quote:
Weren't we stretching the definition of species?

I've looked at this list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hum...on_fossils
and I see neandertals at about 250 thousand years ago, so it roughly matches with homo sapiens, so it makes sense that they would be compatible.
It would also make sense that homo sapiens be compatible with homo erectus, but not with homo habilis, while homo erectus would be compatible with homo habilis.
Of course, they are all extinct, so we can't really check. Only guess... unless anyone here knows about some DNA from these extinct species.

Well they are always finding new DNA in these ancient fossils, so probably someday soon. I have never seen one of these examples that didn’t seem to actually be just a Human or a large Ape, I think Evolutionists overplay their hand a bit with all of these supposed primate linkages (they are often merely artistic interpretations of how the animal ought to have looked based on merely a handful of bones).

Quote:
Snapshots may not exist... all groups kept evolving to the changing environment....
Although, all humans (not at the same time) have adapted the environment to themselves, so I'd accept that for the past few hundreds of years we stopped evolving.

Well physically that may be true, but why would Aboriginals continue to progress mentally if they are still using Stone Age tools and essentially still possess a Stone Age understanding of their Environment? Mentally they should be a snap shot no?

(May 11, 2013 at 7:54 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:

---

Obviously there was no pressure to develop significant differences. The theory does not say there must be change. Humans have been around between 120 and 200 thousand years. For all but the last 6000 everyone was hunter-gatherer as Australoids were H-G. That is hardly time for a difference between Australoid and the rest to develop. Beyond that it is not clear what genetic differences farming might have lead to if industrialization had not replaced it.

However if you insist upon change look to the skin color of the Amerinds found only in the New World. While that is most likely due to the characteristics of a small group crossing over it could also be the skin color of all Asians of 17,000 years ago. In that case Chinese/Oriental skin color would be the change from Amerind color.

In any event the Australoid skin color is almost certainly the original out of Africa color but there is disagreement there also as with everything else.

If you want to take it further it was only between 15 and 12 thousand years ago that Australia became isolated by rising sea level at the end of the ice age. Before that there was dry land almost all the way from SE Asia to Australia. There were no great sea voyages. They walked almost all the way. So there really has not been much more isolation than for Amerinds.

Is there anything else?

---

Thanks for the response Mouse. Most estimates I can find suggest the Aboriginals were isolated around 40,000 years ago.
This just seems all too convenient though, whenever we try to find observable data to support the theory Evolutionists just say, “Well there doesn’t have to be any change.” Or “it takes too long for the changes to occur so that we never actually observe it happening.” When they are really pushed they may offer a few examples of simple adaptations that also support the Creation model like a few changes in skin color or beak sizes. It’s just very underwhelming for a theory that’s so violently championed and defended by its supporters. That doesn’t bother you guys or give you doubts at all?

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 1:25 am)Ryantology Wrote: Red becomes violet as a light wave shortens. Show me exactly where red ends and violet begins.

That’s a faulty analogy because the spectrum of life on Earth has never been observed to be a gradual distinction, but rather very classifiable. What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.

How you do observe a species evolving over millions of years? You can't. You can only go by the fossil record, and it's not complete. Of course, we can see evolution take place on a small scale just by having a kid, it will take on characteristics of both parents but it is still a unique creature. And there are plenty of shorter-term studies which show physical changes to humanity over generations (quick, how many Hispanics existed a thousand years ago?). If people afflicted with dwarfism bred exclusively for many generations, might not they become a species of their own? It's a judgement call. Using the term 'species' in this debate just messes things up, because there is no ironclad objective metric to determine if certain life forms have changed enough to merit being reassigned. We're not a different species from our ancient predecessors as much as we are the same creature which has radically altered its characteristics over time. You can't point to any certain individual and say "this is no longer x, it is now y" because the decision is arbitrary and really beside the point. Evolution is not about one species becoming another. It is about one branch of life changing over generations, depending on how much change is necessary for them to thrive. And this is a process which demonstrably happens. Whatever most primitive single-celled organism first lived and reproduced eventually evolved into me, just as red becomes violet as the wave shortens. The only problem is that this appears to be above your head, but thanks to me, it should not be anymore and you can start forming an argument which is worth this much of a response.

(May 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What gave birth to the very first Human and what made that animal not a Human? I think that’s a rather simple question.

Depends on how far back you'd feel comfortable granting the distinction of "human", wouldn't it?

Quote: I am just not getting how you go from that observable fact to the claim, “therefore all life on Earth came from one common ancestor.”

Easy, that's not how anyone arrives at said conclusion, next?

Quote:I read a paper a few years ago where the genetic match for an organ transplant was actually between an Irish man and an Aboriginal man. So here you have two people groups that have been separated by supposedly 40,000 years and they are still so genetically similar that they are organ transplant matches? There are some siblings that are not similar enough to do organ transplants. It just doesn’t seem to add up.

We're some of the most genetically homogenous creatures on the planet. All of us are more genetically similar to each other than two distinct populations of chimps living in africa. What, exactly, doesn't add up in this equation to you?

Quote:
It always seems to come back to the fossils. :-P So would you concede that if the fossil “record” is not truly a record of death and burial over long periods of time then the whole Evolutionary paradigm dies?

You mean, say, we lived in an alternate reality? All bets would be off in Waldorkia, yes.

Quote:his just seems like storytelling to me, I totally agree that you can get different beak sizes and shapes, but I do not see how that gives you anything other than a Finch with a different beak. Bulldogs and Great Danes are still both dogs you know.

You also, "have a different beak". Further along this little train ide of change human beings and gorillas are both "still apes".

Quote: I think Evolutionists overplay their hand a bit with all of these supposed primate linkages (they are often merely artistic interpretations of how the animal ought to have looked based on merely a handful of bones).

yes, artistic interpretations - and mountains of data on mammalian anatomy, and wear patterns, and placement in the site, and biology. -Merely- that.

Quote:
Well physically that may be true, but why would Aboriginals continue to progress mentally if they are still using Stone Age tools and essentially still possess a Stone Age understanding of their Environment? Mentally they should be a snap shot no?

Why wouldn't they? Anatomical modernity was achieved long before they took their little walkabout, to the tune of roughly 140,00 years, and behavioral modernity was achieved a similarly vast (albeit smaller) number of years before.

Quote:This just seems all too convenient though,

More or less convenient then "goddidit - poof"?

Quote:whenever we try to find observable data to support the theory Evolutionists just say, “Well there doesn’t have to be any change.”

actually, whenever we go around looking for data to support the theory - it has a nasty habit of turning up. That's why we call it a theory, as opposed to a hypothesis - or just some shit a random apologist said on a website one day.

Quote: Or “it takes too long for the changes to occur so that we never actually observe it happening.”

Except that we do observe -it- happening.

Quote:When they are really pushed they may offer a few examples of simple adaptations that also support the Creation model like a few changes in skin color or beak sizes. It’s just very underwhelming for a theory that’s so violently championed and defended by its supporters. That doesn’t bother you guys or give you doubts at all?

There is no creation model, what kind of bullshit is this?

I usually respond that "god was never alive to begin with" to that Nietzschian "God is dead" phrase.