Human evolution - recent news

Originally Posted by*Cypress*

You are free to believe that God "created primitive man" as an article of faith.*

Scientific evidence, which includes the fossil record, DNA, and genetic evidence clearly indicates that humans evolved from archaic primate ancestors which were not human, into the genus hominid, and finally into the modern species of homo sapiens.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by*Bleeding heart*

So you are saying that is beyond Gods capability. ROFLMAO
Click to expand...

Putting words in my mouth is bad from.*
I said no such thing.*
Click to expand...

I disagree. You may not have used those words but your meaning is perfectly clear that according to the science you believe in claims man evolved from some chemical process that became life and everything evolved from those first microbes, and a supreme being had nothing to do with it.
 
3aw9dprdexdz.jpg
 
Cypress said:
While I appreciate the efforts of conservative’s Creation Science Museum making case that humans were created independently of biological evolution and frolicked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, the following conceptual illustration of human evolution makes more sense to me.

Recent advances in science:

-Denisovan genes: In addition to recent findings that non-African humans having a few percent Neanderthal DNA genes, there appears to also be evidence that early homo-sapiens also inter-bred with Denisova hominins - some modern humans might have Denisovan genes.

-Our closest primate relative, the bonobo: Our closest living relatives may be the bonobo…not the chimpanzee.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-bonobos-representation-common-ancestor-humans.html

<snip>
Click to expand...

In the class I had today, the professor had two key pieces of intel I came away with.

Because Homo sapiens inter-bred with Denisovans. all modern humans have about 5 percent Denisovan DNA.

The fact that the mellanin in our skin can adapt to the amount of solar radiation we receive (allowing skin color variation in Homo sapiens) is the direct result of a gene we inherited from Denisovans. The ability of some humans to live at the low oxygen conditions of high altitude (aka, Tibetan people) is also attributable to a gene we inherited from Denisovan hominids. Seemingly suggesting that success and ability of Homo sapiens to adapt to a range of environmental conditions is attributable to the fact that our ancestord ran across and had sex with Denisovan hominids.
 
Cypress said:
In the class I had today, the professor had two key pieces of intel I came away with.

Because Homo sapiens inter-bred with Denisovans. all modern humans have about 5 percent Denisovan DNA.

The fact that the mellanin in our skin can adapt to the amount of solar radiation we receive (allowing skin color variation in Homo sapiens) is the direct result of a gene we inherited from Denisovans. The ability of some humans to live at the low oxygen conditions of high altitude (aka, Tibetan people) is also attributable to a gene we inherited from Denisovan hominids. Seemingly suggesting that success and ability of Homo sapiens to adapt to a range of environmental conditions is attributable to the fact that our ancestord ran across and had sex with Denisovan hominids.
Click to expand...

Even back then we were horny little boogers. lol

That's really interesting.... what class are you taking?
 
Bleeding heart said:
I disagree. You may not have used those words but your meaning is perfectly clear that according to the science you believe in claims man evolved from some chemical process that became life and everything evolved from those first microbes, and a supreme being had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

You're half right. Science has nothing...NOTHING...to say about God or any "Supreme Being" and their actions. This is why Scientist get frustrated with the anti-intellectual crowd. First before you criticize us scientist for our beliefs maybe you should try understanding what science is and how scientist use it.

You won't though. You'll stand on a self-sacrificing soap box that somehow your brand on anti-intellectualism in some way or some how makes you morally superior. So...ok and so what.

If you don't want to contribute productively to a discussion on evolutionary biology then please go away. If you don't want to believe in it fine. You don't work with it. We do and we get a lot accomplished with it.

We use it pretty much every day in our scientific work because...well it works. That's the issue that you can't get around. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts and the facts are that evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory are so powerfully useful that it pretty much moots your objection to it. You can object all you want to. We're going to keep right on doing creative and productive work with it. The fact that you use the products of evolutionary theory every single day of your life and then tell us how morally superior you are for not believing in it just makes laugh at you as a silly and uninformed person because whether you like it or not you do use the products and knowledge of evolutionary theory every day without even knowing it.

So ok...we get it...you don't believe. Well I hate to hurt your feelings but we have productive work to do and aren't really interested in your uninformed opinion.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're half right. Science has nothing...NOTHING...to say about God or any "Supreme Being" and their actions. This is why Scientist get frustrated with the anti-intellectual crowd. First before you criticize us scientist for our beliefs maybe you should try understanding what science is and how scientist use it.

You won't though. You'll stand on a self-sacrificing soap box that somehow your brand on anti-intellectualism in some way or some how makes you morally superior. So...ok and so what.

If you don't want to contribute productively to a discussion on evolutionary biology then please go away. If you don't want to believe in it fine. You don't work with it. We do and we get a lot accomplished with it.

We use it pretty much every day in our scientific work because...well it works. That's the issue that you can't get around. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts and the facts are that evolutionary biology and evolutionary theory are so powerfully useful that it pretty much moots your objection to it. You can object all you want to. We're going to keep right on doing creative and productive work with it. The fact that you use the products of evolutionary theory every single day of your life and then tell us how morally superior you are for not believing in it just makes laugh at you as a silly and uninformed person because whether you like it or not you do use the products and knowledge of evolutionary theory every day without even knowing it.

So ok...we get it...you don't believe. Well I hate to hurt your feelings but we have productive work to do and aren't really interested in your uninformed opinion.
Click to expand...

If you are a scientist, then I must be the Pope.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Mott the Hoople is a trained and experienced professional scientist, and any reasonable person who has been on this board for more than a decade can attest to his scientific acumen and knowledge.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen your "scientist" has talked about getting high smoking weed and heaven knows what else. But I'll play your silly game, as a scientist he must have a field of work. I would love to see his academic and professional credentials. I await that information with baited breath.
 
Bleeding heart said:
From what I have seen your "scientist" has talked about getting high smoking weed and heaven knows what else. But I'll play your silly game, as a scientist he must have a field of work. I would love to see his academic and professional credentials. I await that information with baited breath.
Click to expand...

Mott the Hoople is undoubtedly not going to feel inclined to email you his academic transcripts and professional credentials.
There are plenty of armchair scientists, wannabee scientists, and phony poseurs on this forum who read some obscure rightwing blogs and presume it gives them standing to pontificate about evolution, climate science, environmental regulation. Mott is not one of the poseurs.

Other than that, I have no idea what drew you to my thread about evolution. And what is so interesting about it that it keeps you here. You seem to be more concerned about who is smoking weed and "heaven knows what else" than making any tangible contributions about Neaderthal, Denisovan, Homo sapiens, primates, or Hominid evolution.
 
Cypress said:
Mott the Hoople is undoubtedly not going to feel inclined to email you his academic transcripts and professional credentials.
There are plenty of armchair scientists, wannabee scientists, and phony poseurs on this forum who read some obscure rightwing blogs and presume it gives them standing to pontificate about evolution, climate science, environmental regulation. Mott is not one of the poseurs.

Other than that, I have no idea what drew you to my thread about evolution. And what is so interesting about it that it keeps you here. You seem to be more concerned about who is smoking weed and "heaven knows what else" than making any tangible contributions about Neaderthal, Denisovan, Homo sapiens, primates, or Hominid evolution.
Click to expand...

I believe in evolution but at the same time I don't believe this planet became inhabited by an accidental random chemical reaction. I stated a valid question ( that why couldn't God have planted the seeds of life and let evolution do the rest) and I got attacked for it. You like me cannot prove how life started on this planet, only that it did. So unless you have definitive evidence that I am wrong I suggest you be more cordial and not act like a superior ass.

As to Mott I looked at his profile and he list that he is a hazmat manager, that sport does not indicate being a scientist. I ran hazmat programs in the military and I'm not a scientist.
 
Last edited:
Bleeding heart said:
I believe in evolution but at the same time I don't believe this planet became inhabited by an accidental random chemical reaction. I stated a valid question and I got attacked for it. You like me cannot prove how life started on this planet, only that it did. So unless you have definitive evidence that I am wrong I suggest you be more cordial and not act like a superior ass.

As to Mott I looked at his profile and he list that he is a hazmat manager, that sport does not indicate being a scientist. I ran hazmat programs in the military and I'm not a scientist.
Click to expand...

LOL! So because you weren't a scientist, he can't possibly be one or be engaged in hazmat projects that do require being one?
 
Bleeding heart said:
I believe in evolution but at the same time I don't believe this planet became inhabited by an accidental random chemical reaction. I stated a valid question ( that why couldn't God have planted the seeds of life and let evolution do the rest) and I got attacked for it. You like me cannot prove how life started on this planet, only that it did. So unless you have definitive evidence that I am wrong I suggest you be more cordial and not act like a superior ass.

As to Mott I looked at his profile and he list that he is a hazmat manager, that sport does not indicate being a scientist. I ran hazmat programs in the military and I'm not a scientist.
Click to expand...

The broad outlines of biological evolution are well understood.

There are many remaining questions and uncertainties about abiogenesis - aka, how life came to originate from elemental compounds.
No one has the answer to that, speculations and hypotheses not withstanding.

I have already stated with crystal clear clarity that I have zero problem - none, nada, zilch - with anyone accepting the tenets of biological evolution but also choosing to believe a higher power is behind the scenes and set the universe in motion, that the unfolding of evolution is part and parcel of that natural order.

But that is not science. That is faith and speculation. It cannot be conflated with, or presented as a scientific explanation.

As for your unhealthy interest in Mott the Hoople, I would spend less time stressing about him if I were you. As far as I am aware, Hazmat managers frequently have environmental science degrees and backgrounds. Anyone who has read Mott on these boards since 2006 is acutely aware that he is extremely informed about the biological and environmental sciences. Now beyond that, I will challenge him on quantum mechanics and particle physics any day of the week and twice on Sunday! (jk)
 
In other news it looks like the first people to arrive here from Asia did not cross a land bridge across the Bering Sea as previously thought.

16,000-Year-Old Stone Artifacts Unearthed in Idaho

Archaeologists have uncovered almost two hundred stone artifacts, including projectile points and flake tools, and bone fragments from large mammals at the Cooper’s Ferry site in western Idaho, the United States. The discovery suggests that humans lived in the area 16,000 years ago, more than a thousand years earlier than scientists previously thought. They therefore arrived in the Americas before an inland ice-free corridor had opened. The projectile points from the site closely resemble those found in Japan, supporting the hypothesis of a Pacific coastal route.
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/coopers-ferry-tools-07546.html
Click to expand...
 
anonymoose said:
In other news it looks like the first people to arrive here from Asia did not cross a land bridge across the Bering Sea as previously thought.
Click to expand...

This is cutting edge archaeology. Good contribution. The human migration into North America is still shrouded in mystery and guesswork.

I think the sea route hypothesis seems entirely plausible.

We know that humans made primitive boats and paddled to Australia around 40,000 years ago. Homo erectus may have made boats and paddled to islands in the Indonesian archipelago over a million years ago.

Sea navigation, at least along coastal routes, was clearly within the capability of archaic humans.
 
Cypress said:
The broad outlines of biological evolution are well understood.

There are many remaining questions and uncertainties about abiogenesis - aka, how life came to originate from elemental compounds.
No one has the answer to that, speculations and hypotheses not withstanding.

I have already stated with crystal clear clarity that I have zero problem - none, nada, zilch - with anyone accepting the tenets of biological evolution but also choosing to believe a higher power is behind the scenes and set the universe in motion, that the unfolding of evolution is part and parcel of that natural order.

But that is not science. That is faith and speculation. It cannot be conflated with, or presented as a scientific explanation.

As for your unhealthy interest in Mott the Hoople, I would spend less time stressing about him if I were you. As far as I am aware, Hazmat managers frequently have environmental science degrees and backgrounds. Anyone who has read Mott on these boards since 2006 is acutely aware that he is extremely informed about the biological and environmental sciences. Now beyond that, I will challenge him on quantum mechanics and particle physics any day of the week and twice on Sunday! (jk)
Click to expand...

As for your unhealthy interest in Mott the Hoople,
Click to expand...
Since when is doubting someone on an internet political forum is what they claim is unhealthy? In fact sport your vigor in defending someone who I assume you have never met seems unnatural and unhealthy to me.
Sure someone who is an avid reader can intelligently discuss many subjects. That doesn't mean that person you included is what is claimed.

Lastly of all the folks here you have the most snooty holier than thou attitude I have run across. I suggest you lose the attitude and act like a halfway reasonable person.
 
Bleeding heart said:
Since when is doubting someone on an internet political forum is what they claim is unhealthy? In fact sport your vigor in defending someone who I assume you have never met seems unnatural and unhealthy to me.
Sure someone who is an avid reader can intelligently discuss many subjects. That doesn't mean that person you included is what is claimed.

Lastly of all the folks here you have the most snooty holier than thou attitude I have run across. I suggest you lose the attitude and act like a halfway reasonable person.
Click to expand...
I haven't lurked your profile page .You said you were lurking mott's.

I don't know if you have friends and are aware of this ,but I am allowed to stick up for my pals.

My posts on this thread have been generous, respectful, and non-dissmisive of religion . You cannot be blind to that fact .

The word "snooty" is code used by those resentful of the well spoken and erudite .I am not going to apologize for my education and ability to use the English language .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top