Should I try to get from Evolutionists, what happened to "Evolution", at the tower of Babel?

[AdamjEdgar]

Nobody said they were ancestors of humans.

I said that they interbred with our ancestors.

i am lost for words...it seems you missed this

The Barbarian wrote..."They aren't precursors to anatomically modern humans."​

It would seem that you are not the only person on this forum responding...or perhaps you did not notice others are also actively participating?

The point is, evolutionists are starting to really muddy the waters now...it seems that they are now separating the two in that they did not come from a common source. The problem is, if Neanderthals date back at least 800,000 years ago, and homo sapiens only 400,000 years ago...then it would appear there is a problem in the timeline and area of origin.

i am not particularly concerned by that confusion, it only makes the entire theory far less credible than it already is.

 

[Job 33:6]

i am lost for words...it seems you missed this

The Barbarian wrote..."They aren't precursors to anatomically modern humans."​

It would seem that you are not the only person on this forum responding...or perhaps you did not notice others are also actively participating?

The point is, evolutionists are starting to really muddy the waters now...it seems that they are now separating the two in that they did not come from a common source. The problem is, if Neanderthals date back at least 800,000 years ago, and homo sapiens only 400,000 years ago...then it would appear there is a problem in the timeline and area of origin.

i am not particularly concerned by that confusion, it only makes the entire theory far less credible than it already is.

I would agree that they aren't precursors to anatomically modern humans. As noted before, they interbred with us.

Species can diverge while still originating from a common ancestor, just as two breeds of dog can diverge while still originating from a common wolf. Just because one breed diverges from wolves, doesn't mean that all breeds of dog must simultaneously diverge. Nor does it mean that wolves disappear the moment dogs come into existence, meaning that multiple breeds of dog can split from a common ancestor of wolves at different times.

I guess you can call this a muddy concept of you want. But it seems simple enough to me.

Humans and neanderthals sharing a common ancestor while originating at different times is logically no more complicated than a poodle and a pug sharing a common ancestor, though the two were not bred into existence simultaneously.

What is it about this concept that you specifically feel is hard to accept?

 

[The Barbarian]

and yet here were are with scientific drawings showing the gradual incline of apes into upright humans

No. Those are not what science says about it. Orthogenesis is a myth, and no biologist I know of hangs onto that idea.

The philosopher of biology Michael Ruse notes that in popular culture evolution and progress are synonyms, while the unintentionally misleading image of the March of Progress, from apes to modern humans, has been widely imitated.
Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

Nope. Not scientific. It's not a ladder, it's a bush. And it's messy and a lot remains to be determined:

Genetics indicates that it's very likely that Neanderthals, anatomically modern humans, and Denisovans are merely races (subspecies) of a single species, H. sapiens. But there's not universal acceptance of that, yet. Neanderthals are just different enough from us that they could be a very closely related species. But it's clear that all three of those a common ancestor, archaic Homo, perhaps H. ergaster.

Regardless of their most correct classification, H. ergaster exhibit primitive versions of traits later expressed in H. erectus and are thus likely the direct ancestors of later H. erectus populations in Asia. Additionally, H. ergaster is likely ancestral to later hominins in Europe and Africa, such as modern humans and Neanderthals.
Homo ergaster - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is, evolutionists are starting to really muddy the waters now...it seems that they are now separating the two in that they did not come from a common source.

No, that's wrong.

The problem is, if Neanderthals date back at least 800,000 years ago, and homo sapiens only 400,000 years ago...then it would appear there is a problem in the timeline and area of origin.

Ah, the creationist "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" doctrine. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Two problems here.

First, it's quite possible for a population to give rise to two other subspecies at different times, without actually going extinct for some time afterwards.

Second, very early Neanderthals looked more like anatomically modern humans (us) than later Neanderthals did. Which again, indicates a common human ancestor for both (it's likely that Neanderthals later gave rise to Denisovans).

i am not particularly concerned by that confusion, it only makes the entire theory far less credible than it already is.

Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.

 

[chilehed]

I think what is scary, is that Evolutionists would say "the tower of Babel, didn't change anything Evolutionarily".

Well, they only say that because it wouldn't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interestingly, if you look at the languages around the Middle East, it appears that God changed the languages at Babel, so that it would look exactly as though languages evolved from each other.

We see the same evolution happening to language in history. At one time, people in France, Italy, Spain,Romania, etc. could understand each other, calling their language "Latin." Over time, more and more differences accumulated until they became different languages. When did "speciation" occur? We can't say precisely. It happened when the languages became different enough that they were mutually unintelligible. In some cases, it's likely that the speakers of one of the languages could understand one or more of the others, but the speakers of the others could not. We see that in biological evolution, too.

The evolution of languages is not biological evolution, but it shows that God uses such processes in many ways to effect His will.