Do all humans come from Africa?

[Papias]

I have investigated your claims on medical sites and they do not agree with you.

Oh you have? Would you like to post the links and point out what you think is wrong? Sfs is an expert in the field, doing actual work. Your posts, on the other hand, suggest that you don't even understand basic concepts.

For instance:

sfs said: ↑
The malaria parasite has changed genetically. That is evolution.

Evolution is when one species changes into another.

Wrong. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time in a population. Thus, sfs was correct.

They do talk about various strains of mosquitoes but everyone is a mosquito and nothing changes so it is not evolution.

Evolution is when one species changes into another.

Well, at least I'm not a mosquito.

Evolution amounting to a change from one species to another has been observed many times. One prominent example of this did indeed involve one species of mosquito evolving into a different species of mosquito. You are aware that all "mosquitos" are not the same species, right? The same goes for "fish" - there are different species of "fish", etc.

In watching dinosaurs evolve into birds, one could always say "there was no evolution - they stayed animals. They started out as animals, and ended as animals. Always "animals", so no evolution.

Heredity - Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Episaw]

Oh you have? Would you like to post the links and point out what you think is wrong? Sfs is an expert in the field, doing actual work. Your posts, on the other hand, suggest that you don't even understand basic concepts.

For instance:



Wrong. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time in a population. Thus, sfs was correct.



Well, at least I'm not a mosquito.

Evolution amounting to a change from one species to another has been observed many times. One prominent example of this did indeed involve one species of mosquito evolving into a different species of mosquito. You are aware that all "mosquitos" are not the same species, right? The same goes for "fish" - there are different species of "fish", etc.

In watching dinosaurs evolve into birds, one could always say "there was no evolution - they stayed animals. They started out as animals, and ended as animals. Always "animals", so no evolution.

Heredity - Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

In Christ-

Papias

"Wrong. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time in a population. Thus, sfs was correct."

Wrong. Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example.

Until last year, Darwin's finches beaks were offered as proof of evolution but when it was obvious that it wasn't, all it was was adaptation, the story changed and we were told that adaptation is evolution.

Now we have strains of parasites changing as proof of evolution. The fact that they are still the original parasites with a variation is evolution is drawing a very long bow.

But I guess when you have been blasted out of the water with your pronunciations, I guess you have to invent a replacement to save face.

" Evolution amounting to a change from one species to another has been observed many times."

Oh yeah? Name one that you have observed other than the nebulous parasite whose so-called evolutionary change has changed nothing as it still is the same parasite, not a ladybird.

And where did you see dinosaurs change into birds?

 

[Papias]

"Wrong. Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency over time in a population. Thus, sfs was correct."

Wrong. Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example.

Um, what part of "Would you like to post the links and point out what you think is wrong? " wasn't clear?
You can't just make statements as support for your unsupported statements. Using your memory of what someone might have said sometime is obviously not a basis for making a claim - and the fact that you've insisted it is reflects poorly on all of your arguments.

The change in allele frequency over time is literally the dictionary definition. To call the dictionary wrong shows that you don't know what you are talking about - as pointed out earlier.

You literally told an expert in the field he was wrong when he gave you the dictionary definition. And then defended doing so for at least two posts. It's unreal. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

"
Until last year, Darwin's finches beaks were offered as proof of evolution but when it was obvious that it wasn't, all it was was adaptation, the story changed and we were told that adaptation is evolution.

There is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. First of all, adaptation is evolution. Of course you are told that - that's known to be the case today just as it has been known for well over a century.

Darwin's finches are a well known example of evolution, and that also hasn't changed.

Now we have strains of parasites changing as proof of evolution. The fact that they are still the original parasites with a variation is evolution is drawing a very long bow.

It appears that my explanation of why saying 'an "X" still remained an "X" ' doesn't refute species evolution didn't help you understand. Sorry about that. Did you read that? I'll try again.

If, hypothetically, scientists observed a dinosaur population evolve into a population of birds, and someone said "that isn't proof of anything - those were animals to start with, and they are still just animals.", do you think that this would nonetheless be evidence for evolution?

But I guess when you have been blasted out of the water with your pronunciations, I guess you have to invent a replacement to save face.
" Evolution amounting to a change from one species to another has been observed many times."
Oh yeah? Name one that you have observed other than the nebulous parasite whose so-called evolutionary change has changed nothing as it still is the same parasite, not a ladybird.

Um, I did - mosquito example. You did read that, right? Do you understand what a species is?

And where did you see dinosaurs change into birds?

When an example starts with "one could....", it means that it's hypothetical. Of course I didn't see that myself, as we humans evolved from earlier ape more than 60 million years after the (non-avian) dinosaurs died out.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[sfs]

Wrong. Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example.

That can't possibly be true, since I'm an "evolutionist" and I told you a few posts ago that genetic changes to malaria parasites were evolution.

Now we have strains of parasites changing as proof of evolution.

They're not proof of evolution; they're an example of evolution.

I note that you still haven't told us who any of the biologists are who know for a fact that evolution is impossible. Who do you think you're convincing by just spewing claims that you can't back up?

 

[Episaw]

That can't possibly be true, since I'm an "evolutionist" and I told you a few posts ago that genetic changes to malaria parasites were evolution.

They're not proof of evolution; they're an example of evolution.

I note that you still haven't told us who any of the biologists are who know for a fact that evolution is impossible. Who do you think you're convincing by just spewing claims that you can't back up?

So, because you say it then it must be right? An atheist evolutionist said on a video that evolution is complete rubbish.

Not proof but an example. So you are saying now they didn't evolve after presenting them as evolving. Well, I hope you don't mind if I ignore your non-proof.

Just for your information, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I say what I say because I know that it gets up the nose of evolutionists who think they have the corner on truth.

 

[sfs]

So, because you say it then it must be right?

No, because I say it, your statement, "Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example," was obviously false. Get it? I'm an evolutionist, and I didn't tell you that.

Not proof but an example. So you are saying now they didn't evolve after presenting them as evolving.

No, "This is an example of evolution" does not mean "they didn't evolve".

Just for your information, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Well, good -- you're being spectacularly successful, in that case. It would be nice, though, if you cared a little about whether what you say is true or not.

 

[Episaw]

No, because I say it, your statement, "Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example," was obviously false. Get it? I'm an evolutionist, and I didn't tell you that.

No, "This is an example of evolution" does not mean "they didn't evolve".

Well, good -- you're being spectacularly successful, in that case. It would be nice, though, if you cared a little about whether what you say is true or not.

You don't have to tell me what evolutionists say is false. I learned that long ago when what they told me changed from day to day.

And I never said you told me that.

But you said they are not proof of evolution.

I guess that I have got used to being successful. By the way, you don't care if what you say is untrue. No evolutionist does as what they say is always untrue. It is a figment of their imagination. but then, amazing what you believe when you are sucked in by ideology and fallen for Satan's lies.

 

[Papias]

And I never said you told me that.

Yes, you did say exactly that, in post #282. You said that "everything ... you've been told by evolutionists" says ..." and sfs is an "evolutionist". Here is your quote again:

Everything I have read and have been told by evolutionists says that evolution is when a fish becomes a bird for example.

You post is yet again a string of insults, unsupported statements, and falsehoods. It's hard to have a conversation when your posts don't respond to what is being said, and simply repeat insults, unsupported statements, and falsehoods.

In Christ -
Papias

 

[Episaw]

Yes, you did say exactly that, in post #282. You said that "everything ... you've been told by evolutionists" says ..." and sfs is an "evolutionist". Here is your quote again:

You post is yet again a string of insults, unsupported statements, and falsehoods. It's hard to have a conversation when your posts don't respond to what is being said, and simply repeat insults, unsupported statements, and falsehoods.

In Christ -Papias

In your haste to put me down, you are indulging in la la land.

It is obvious that anyone with a modicum of understanding knows that I am not referring to sfs as I have only just spoken with him.

The word "told" is a past tense word so it is something that has already happened. So I repeat "Everything that I HAVE BEEN TOLD by evolutionists" NOT "everything that I am BEING TOLD..." Comprende?

Show me one insult I have made.

And for your information, I do not have to respond to anything anyone has said as it is not a rule of the Forum. I can write whatever I like and if you don't like it then go somewhere else where you are more able to control what is being said.

By the way, falsehoods are in the eye of the beholder. Because you say something is a falsehood doesn't make it one. I have found (past tense) that atheists, in general, believe anything that contradicts what they say to be a falsehood. Whether it is true or not is never a consideration.

Let me give you an example. Constantly on Christian forums, atheists claim the bible was written by a load of goat herders [insult].

When I point out it was written by Prime Ministers, Kings, Prophets, Generals in the Army, Rabbis, Doctors and self-employed businessmen to name a few and what is their response? The bible was written by a load of goat herders when in fact not one goat herder has written anything to do with the bible and the fact that the Israelites were shepherds, not goat herders.

Understand why we are not impressed by the pronouncements of atheists?

 

[joinfree]

I recently accepted that Jesus the Christ was in fact middle eastern and not Caucasian like the pictures that some churches have of Jesus. Which leads me to the study of my origins as a white person.

Then I was reading in the Human article on wikipedia Human - Wikipedia and I saw under the illustration slightly down on the page the "human timeline" that homoerectus or homohabilis migrated from Africa.

So if I am to accept some sort of mixture between creationism and evolution, than also does that illustration mean that all humans are from Africa also? So that although I'm not African my ancestors are from Africa at some point?

 

[Sammy-San]

We have common ancestor based on common descent. For example quite a few people are related to Abraham in the Bible. Of course as gentiles we are not related to Abraham because we are adopted into the family. We are a branch from a wild tree grafted into a cultivated tree. When people share a matriarch or patriarch then we can expect that they are going to share common DNA characteristics. In China you will find that 92 percent of the people are descended from the Han dynasty dating back to 205 BC.

Just Genesis : What Color Was Abraham?

One of Abraham's descendants was Edom or Esau because he was red. The clan of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36) were Edomites, and as with all the Horites had common physical features because they practiced endogamy.
Abraham's grandson Esau inherited his grandfather's red skin tone. We do not know Jacob's coloring, but he may have been darker skinned than Esau. King David is described as ruddy, and as a boy probably looked like this young man.

Having a red skin tone indicates a very ancient genetic lineage, going back at least 18,000 years (Haplogroup R1b). The Biblical writers appear to have been aware of this. The term "red' involves a range of tones from red-brown to brown-red, as shown in the photos below.

Of course, exposure to the sun affects the skin. In his younger years, when he traveled more, Abraham might have been a darker red-brown like the Beja men shown below:

 

[Papias]

In your haste to put me down,

I haven't tried to put you down, neither in haste nor leisure. Why do you think I'm trying to put you down?

It is obvious that anyone with a modicum of understanding knows that I am not referring to sfs as I have only just spoken with him.
The word "told" is a past tense word so it is something that has already happened. So I repeat "Everything that I HAVE BEEN TOLD by evolutionists" NOT "everything that I am BEING TOLD..." Comprende?

"told" is indeed past tense. You had already been told that by sfs. That makes it past tense. Both sfs and I pointed that out.

Show me one insult I have made.

OK. In post #287, you wrote:

By the way, you don't care if what you say is untrue. No evolutionist does as what they say is always untrue. It is a figment of their imagination. but then, amazing what you believe when you are sucked in by ideology and fallen for Satan's lies.​

This contains at least three insults:

• The blue insult calls me a liar.
• The green insult calls everyone who accepts evolution a liar.
• The red insult calls everyone who accepts evolution a liar again (and it's preposterous anyway, since people say many things, and it's very unlikely that every single statement is false).
• The orange insult calls everyone who accepts evolution delusional.
• The purple statement is pretty close to an insult - suggesting that someone (me? Everyone who accepts evolution?) has "fallen for Satan's lies". - but I'll not include it in the count as it is a passive -aggressive statement and not an absolutely clear insult.

And that, of course, is just post #287.

And for your information, I do not have to respond to anything anyone has said as it is not a rule of the Forum. I can write whatever I like and if you don't like it then go somewhere else where you are more able to control what is being said.

Well, sure. One can be an ignorant boor who insults other Christians, says they are under the control of Satan, all the while ignoring facts, stating falsehoods, and refusing to have a rational discussion. Being able to do so doesn't make something a good thing to do.

By the way, falsehoods are in the eye of the beholder.

Um, no. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Some things are true, and some things are false. I'm a little surprised I actually have to point that out.

What color was Abraham

That article correctly states that the R1b Y haplogroup goes back 18,000 years. Good to see that you accept that.

Skin color, like many other human/ape traits, evolved in response to the environment over hundreds of thousands (often millions) of years. That's why darker skins are found in people who have ancestries close to the equator. Here's a diagram.

and a good explanation of our skin colors: The skin we're in » Scienceline

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SolomonVII]

Just Genesis : What Color Was Abraham?

I disagree somewhat with your source.
Abraham did not come from Edom, but from Ur, according to Genesis.
Abraham's Ur

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just Genesis : What Color Was Abraham?

Abraham was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. He would be pretty much the same color at the people that still life in UAE today. Abraham descendants through Ishmael had the Egyptian Hagar for a mother.

 

[Sammy-San]

Abraham was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. He would be pretty much the same color at the people that still life in UAE today. Abraham descendants through Ishmael had the Egyptian Hagar for a mother.

What about this? Just Genesis : Adam Was a Red Man

The Hebrew word for red is edom and it is a cognate to the Hausa word odum, meaning red-brown. Both are related to the word dam, meaning blood, and to the name of the first man Adam, who was formed from the red clay which washed down to the Upper Nile Valley from the Ethiopian highlands. These soils have a cambic B horizon. Chromic cambisols have a strong red brown color. It is evident then that the Upper Nile is the urheimat of the Adam and Eve story.
Jeff A. Benner, an expert on ancient Hebrew, explains:

We are all familiar with the name "Adam" as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, "blood". By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child rootאדם is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

By examing a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה (adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning "ground" (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means "red". Each of these words have the common meaning of "red". Dam is the "red" blood, adamah is the "red" ground, edom is the color "red" and adam is the "red" man. There is one other connection between "adam" and "adamah" as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that "the adam" was formed out of the "adamah".

 

[SolomonVII]

Adam was the first man. All men of all races are descendants of the same Adam, the same Eve.

 

[Sammy-San]

Adam was the first man. All men of all races are descendants of the same Adam, the same Eve.

Is it a mystery their appearance?

 

[SolomonVII]

Is it a mystery their appearance?

It does not logically follow that Abraham is red because Adam is red.

 

[Sammy-San]

It does not logically follow that Abraham is red because Adam is red.

Aren't native americans and related peoples reddish brown? Red doesn't make literal sense.

 

[Episaw]

I haven't tried to put you down, neither in haste nor leisure. Why do you think I'm trying to put you down?

"told" is indeed past tense. You had already been told that by sfs. That makes it past tense. Both sfs and I pointed that out.

OK. In post #287, you wrote:

By the way, you don't care if what you say is untrue. No evolutionist does as what they say is always untrue. It is a figment of their imagination. but then, amazing what you believe when you are sucked in by ideology and fallen for Satan's lies.​

This contains at least three insults:

• The blue insult calls me a liar.
• The green insult calls everyone who accepts evolution a liar.
• The red insult calls everyone who accepts evolution a liar again (and it's preposterous anyway, since people say many things, and it's very unlikely that every single statement is false).
• The orange insult calls everyone who accepts evolution delusional.
• The purple statement is pretty close to an insult - suggesting that someone (me? Everyone who accepts evolution?) has "fallen for Satan's lies". - but I'll not include it in the count as it is a passive -aggressive statement and not an absolutely clear insult.

And that, of course, is just post #287.

Well, sure. One can be an ignorant boor who insults other Christians, says they are under the control of Satan, all the while ignoring facts, stating falsehoods, and refusing to have a rational discussion. Being able to do so doesn't make something a good thing to do.

Um, no. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Some things are true, and some things are false. I'm a little surprised I actually have to point that out.

That article correctly states that the R1b Y haplogroup goes back 18,000 years. Good to see that you accept that.

Skin color, like many other human/ape traits, evolved in response to the environment over hundreds of thousands (often millions) of years. That's why darker skins are found in people who have ancestries close to the equator. Here's a diagram.

and a good explanation of our skin colors: The skin we're in » Scienceline

In Christ- Papias

One. What I have been told is that what I said applied to people on this forum, which is untrue because what I said was "what I have been told..." past tense, therefore, it is impossible for it to apply to what I have been told by people here.

Two. Anyone who promotes evolution as fact is lying as it is contrary to the word of God which says that we are created AFTER OUR OWN KIND so that rules out evolution.

Three. To promote evolution as fact is a lie.

Four. If you accept evolution as fact, you have to lie because it is contrary to the word of God.

Five. As there is enough evidence that evolution is not true, yes it is delusional to promote it as a fact.

Six. And yes anyone who promotes evolution as fact has fallen for satan's lies because he is the father of lies and cannot tell the truth to save his life. Therefore, as evolution is contrary to God's word, it must come from Satan and it must be a lie.

Seven. "I'm a little surprised I actually have to point that out." In my scheme of things and as a retired English teacher, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Eight. I don't accept that as the world was created 6,000 years ago in its present form with life on earth.

Nine. Skin colour did not evolve over millions of years as mankind has only been on the earth for 6,000 years give or take.

Ten. And don't forget your defense of evolution is based on hypotheticals. My non-acceptance of it is based on the word of God, in which it says "that heaven and earth wil pass away, but my word will NEVER pass away."

That means the Word of God will outlast your hypotheticals of evolution.