Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Apparently we share Neanderthal DNA so they are probably human.
The size of our brains being they key difference.
Not so, since the first Humans (descendants of Adam) arrived in the mountains of Ararat only 11k years ago, in man's time, according to History. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html
Neanderthal had the larger brain when compared to modern Humans. The difference is that Humans descended from Adam and Neanderthal descended from the common ancestor of Apes. ONLY Adam's descendants have INHERITED his superior intelligence, which is like God's. Genesis 3:22
. So you reject a gorilla that use sign language and who told mr Rogers that she loved him . You pretend that chimps don’t make Spears and hunt with them . The real difference between the other apes and humans is that we’ll cooperate. They haven’t quite figured that out.
Not a biblical view and requires the acceptance of dating method accuracy at a distance of thousands of years.
We seem to share DNA and the large brain speaks of an intelligence that apes lack.
But it is possible they were dumb brutes that some humans interbred with or that they were humans who adapted in a different direction to most of us. The first assumes they were a separate creation and the second that they also were sons of Adam
Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'Doesn't anyone else find it awfully convenient that all these supposed bones for human evolution are found yet none are found for gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gigantopithecus, etc?
Not entirely true actually. They have in fact figured that out.
What they haven't figured out though, is the importance of "the greater good". A chimp will only cooperate with another chimp, if he gets immediate reward for it.
I remember this social experiment...
It was kind of a puzzle.
2 chimps were in a cage. Just outside the cage, a plate with grapes (or whatever).
A rope was put around the plate, with the ends reaching inside the cage - but too far apart for one chimp to pull both (to get the plate closer to the cage so they were able to reach the food).
If you pulled on one end, the other end off course came out of the cage and then there was no way left to reach the food.
When the experiment starts, only one chimp is let in the cage. He tries to get to the food and quickly realises that he can't do it alone. This chimp himself, then lets the other chimp into the cage through a door. They instantly cooperate. Both chimps take an end of the rope and pull.
But then, something happens. The dominant chimp of the two goes for the food and doesn't share.
A bit later, the experiment was repeated. Again the dominant chimp starts alone in the cage. Quickly realising it's the same puzzle, he lets the other chimp in. The dominant chimp moves into position to pull the rope. The other...... does not.
The first experience taught him that he'll only be helping the other guy get food. He'll get nothing. So he won't help.
Chimps seem to only bother with things that yield immediate returns.
Another experiment comes to mind, which is quite fascinating imo, as it would seem to illustrate that young chimps are actually smarter then human children.
There's this black plastic box with some candy in it. The subjects (young chimps and humans) are shown a series of "actions/manipulations" with the box, at the end of which a piece of candy comes out of the box. Both the chimps and humans carefully repeat the series of actions step by step, to get the candy.
Next up, the exact same experiment with the exact same box. ONly this time, the box is transparant. Because it is transparant, it also becomes obvious that half of the actions/manipulations are actually not necessary at all, as they don't do anything. They are completely useless to get to the candy.
Here's the not-so-obvious result:
- chimps immediatly stop doing the unecessary steps. They only do the steps that are actually required to get the candy.
- human children... don't. They continue doing the entire series, while half of the series is completely useless.
The theory is, that we humans are so "smart", because we spend our lives learning everything - including those things that seem entirely useless at the time that we learn them.
While chimps only do and learn the absolute required minimum - and even then also only if it yields immediate results.
Lots of such experiments can be seen on youtube.
Many of them do - observe the inevitable threats of Hell via bible verse that pop up on here when Johnny Genesis can't find an archived quote to counter a claim with...Do you think that coercion is a good way to get converts?
You don't seem to know the difference between a warning and a coercion.
Remember that God is also the Spirit of Truth and He MUST always do that which is perfect IF He is to have a perfect Heaven. Don't be so paranoid in your thinking. Everything's gonna be alright in the end for those who love God.
The evidence is that we do share DNA with Neanderthals and also Denisovans. Neanderthals had larger brains than us, however brain size by itself is not related to intelligence.We seem to share DNA and the large brain speaks of an intelligence that apes lack. But it is possible they were dumb brutes that some humans interbred with or that they were humans who adapted in a different direction to most of us. The first assumes they were a separate creation and the second that they also were sons of Adam
I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'
I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.
Fixed it for you.
Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.You can change my words all you want, but the fact remains.
Science analyses the evidence and builds testable models to explain said evidence.
Creationists ignore all that and just wave their bibles instead.
Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.
Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.
I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here. It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious). However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.@KomatiiteBIF gave a fine example a couple days ago. I'm just gonna use that example
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/evolutions-brick-wall.8075571/page-63#post-73140603
Here is a copy paste of the full post:
People can, and have used genetics, to predict the location of fossils.
And I always turn to the popular example. The devonian is the age of fish. Fish dominated devonian strata. Terrestrial life dominates the Carboniferous. If evolution were true. Then fish-like tetrapods should exist in the mid to late devonian, after domination of fish but before the terrestrial takeover of the Carboniferous.
Not only that, but genetically, amphibians according to evolution will also be found between fish and reptiles, as reptiles are those that dominate the Carboniferous and fish dominated the devonian.
Knowing this, a team of scientists from Philadelphia and Chicago used a geologic map to find middle aged devonian rock, aged between the dominance of fish and the dominance of terrestrial vertebrates. This rock was in a random area in the Canadian tundra. That's just where the rock extends. The travelled specifically to rock consistent of shallow marine deposits, things like stream deposits and alluvial fan deposits, and they found a fish with legs.
That is tiktaalik. It has scales like a fish, but it also has rotating wrists, robust shoulders, eyes on top of it's head like an alligator. But had find Ray's rather than toes, and it had gills and spiracles on it's head indicating that it could breath both air and water. Neck vertebrae are unfused like a tetrapod, but it's jaw is shaped like a fishes.
So they truly found a part fish part tetrapod animal right where evolution predicted that such a thing would exist up in a devonian outcrop in Canada.
So what is the response from evolution deniars? Do they believe the discovery of tiktaalik was pure chance? What if I named another fossil also discovered through prediction based on the theory of evolution? What if I named 10 more? Or 100?
And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.
Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.And if anyone wants, I can talk about a another transitional.
I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here. It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious). However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.
They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body. Evolutionists imagined the tiktaalik to having "fin feet". The reconstruction of the tikaalik was mostly out of preconceived speculations.
The reason why most "smart" evolutionists stay away from the tikaalik, is because they found fossilised tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the tikaalik. Why are these evolutionary "predictive powers" so commonly wrong? Not only are they commonly wrong, they are built upon fantastic stories rather than going through actual scientific applications. Remember the Piltdown man built up from nothing but a pig tooth? So, the tikaalik was quietly dismissed and put into the category as a "cousin" of the actual transitional form that's conveniently still missing.
Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.
You want to show me these other 15 specimens of the tikaalik?There are over 10, I believe the number is closer to 15 individual tiktaalik specimen. These include specimens with the feet. The very first one did not have it's back end, but later ones have and research has been published on them
And with this alone, we can see that @Abraxos has been misinformed and is factually providing false information.
Also, the tetrapod tracks of Poland are actually considered to have been possibly made by something similar to tiktaalik if not by tiktaalik itself . And those tracks only predate tiktaalik by I believe the number is maybe around 15 million years. Which in a succession of 600 million years of complex fossils among fossils at large dating back a billion years, to say that because tracks were found in strata right before tiktaalik, somehow debunk a fish to tetrapod succession, doesn't hold weight when tiktaalik and the tracks are found in a geological sense, at the same time.
If we were to turn earth history into a book of say, rather than 4.56 billion years of rock, we had 4.56 thousand pages, tiktaalik at the Poland tracks would be found 10 pages apart in a 4560 page book. Or in a 456 page book, they'd be on the same page and in the same paragraph.
So imagine, someone who is blind, hands you a book 456 pages long, and says that the theory of evolution predicts that the fish to tetrapod sequence will be published on page 300, paragraph 4. And you open that book and there it is. Tiktaalik. And someone comes along and is like...no no, this is all wrong, it actually happened on page 456, 2 sentences earlier.
That's not debunking, that's fine tuning with precision.
And of course, the above post doesn't actually address the question of how the prediction was made, which is the ultimate question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?