Humans are unique, not evolved

[The Barbarian]

Neandertals are a cartoon created by Darwin Studios.

Nope. They are almost certainly a subspecies of H. sapiens. As we are.

Darwin Studios requires an Ape/Man = Missing Link

Wouldn't be Neanderthals. They are as evolved as we are, but in a different directions. Neither of us evolved from the other. Both evolved from a common human ancestor, archaic H. sapiens.

DNA 30,000 year old severely degraded Neandertal DNA = 99.7% Human

Yep. Just on the edge of speciation, but not quite. By the same measure chimp DNA is about 98.8% similar. So about twice the genetic distance.

IF a Neandertal bone were found that matched 100%, Darwin Studios would still insist Ape/Man.

Nope. Genetics says that they are just another subspecies of H. sapiens.

Neandertals built shelters, tools, used fire to cook and face paint, language, flutes and buried the dead ceremonially.

Yep.

Neandertals were humans as different from other humans as Bull Mastiffs are from Labrador Retrievers.

I would think about the same genetic distance, but I don't have the data at hand. I do know there is more variation between breeds than within breeds, which is the opposite with humans of different races today. ( there are no biological human races now)

 

[QvQ]

I do know there is more variation between breeds than within breeds, which is the opposite with humans of different races today

However, all Dog breeds are Dogs. Any selectively bred purebred bred to a selectively bred purebred = 100% Dog
Aborigines are very different than other races. There are anatomical differences, cultural differences but 100% human. When a European mates with an aborigine, the genes are recombined into human. When Neandertal Humans mated with African Humans = 100% Human.
Those variations between Aborigine and European are all in the same closed genetic box.
The question is: Could any generic human's genetic code express Neandertal, Aborigine or European?
The answer is Yes
That "genetic box" is closed
Therefore: Humans are unique.

 

[The Barbarian]

The question is: Could any generic human's genetic code express Neandertal, Aborigine or European?
The answer is Yes

No. No anatomically modern human, for example has genes for the simian shelf or occipital "bun" of Neanderthals.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

We no longer take away the rights and freedoms of people of different religions and races. That seems to be an advance in wisdom.

Psst, there are less rights and freedoms, less than ever in these days since the pandemic. You’ve been living under a rock for too long.

"Intelligent" and "humble" are not antonyms. In fact, for most people, the more they know, the more they are humbled by all the things they don't know.

No, but intelligence and higher education are not synonyms either. And humility is rare, especially among younger generations who really think they know it all with the internet, you don’t get to speak for “most people”.

 

[Diamond72]

God created male and female in his image, period.

Why did God create male and female? Biology has an answer, but does the Bible tell us why?

 

[Diamond72]

Psst, there are less rights and freedoms, less than ever in these days since the pandemic. You’ve been living under a rock for too long.

I remember the day when they did not search you at the airport. They use to say: Fly the Friendly Skys. Not so friendly anymore.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Why did God create male and female? Biology has an answer, but does the Bible tell us why?

It's not good for man to be alone, Gen. 2:18

 

[The Barbarian]

Psst, there are less rights and freedoms, less than ever in these days since the pandemic.

I just checked. We haven't gone back to taking freedom from people of different colors and faiths. So that's still wiser than when I was young. And no new incursions on rights took place during the pandemic. The controls implemented were approved by the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, but intelligence and higher education are not synonyms either. And humility is rare, especially among younger generations who really think they know it all with the internet, you don’t get to speak for “most people”.

I happen to know a lot of people in younger generations. They seem to be doing pretty well in that regard. I might be a crabby old guy, but I'm not blind.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I just checked. We haven't gone back to taking freedom from people of different colors and faiths. So that's still wiser than when I was young. And no new incursions on rights took place during the pandemic. The controls implemented were approved by the Supreme Court over a hundred years ago.

"We must obey God rather than man," Acts. 5:29. The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbitor of morality, God is. Whatever you've checked, it's still under the rock you're living. Ever heard of "information bubble"? That the big tech only showing you what you want to see and what you already subscribe to? And don't speak on behalf of "we", it's just your own opinion.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I happen to know a lot of people in younger generations. They seem to be doing pretty well in that regard. I might be a crabby old guy, but I'm not blind.

Maybe, but usually not on any kind of screen, not on tv, Instagram, TikTok or any kind of vlog. I don't know what percentage of young people have such audacity to market themselves and such desire for fame, but that's surely a "lot" as well, a lot as large as your "lot" of people.

 

[The Barbarian]

"We must obey God rather than man," Acts. 5:29. The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbitor of morality, God is.

They are, however, the ultimate authority on the Constitution and our laws thereby. Since we have religious freedom here, imposition of religious doctrine is unlawful.

Whatever you've checked, it's still under the rock you're living.

Funny how folks like that never realize they're missing out.

That the big tech only showing you what you want to see and what you already subscribe to?

I suspect that's what got you down the rabbit hole in the first place.

And don't speak on behalf of "we"

I'm referring to Americans. If anything we've become willing to grant equal rights to more people recently. Homosexuals, for example.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

They are, however, the ultimate authority on the Constitution and our laws thereby. Since we have religious freedom here, imposition of religious doctrine is unlawful.

No we don't, not really. Banning public display of religious messaging is the lack of religious freedom, "separation of church and state" is not constitutional, and neither is imposition of transgender and critical race theory. Those are religious doctrines disguised as "science".

Funny how folks like that never realize they're missing out.

I suspect that's what got you down the rabbit hole in the first place.

I'm referring to Americans. If anything we've become willing to grant equal rights to more people recently. Homosexuals, for example.

Or you're just referring to yourself in your own rabbit hole.

 

[The Barbarian]

I suspect that's what got you down the rabbit hole in the first place.

I'm referring to Americans. If anything we've become willing to grant equal rights to more people recently. Homosexuals, for example.

Or you're just referring to yourself in your own rabbit hole.

Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage​

Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage

U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to grow, now at 70% -- a new high in Gallup's trend dating to 1996.

news.gallup.com

Seems like it would be awfully crowded, if that was the case...

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. In the past, real gays with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda loathed marriage, they acknowledged that marriage is between a man and a woman only, they saw it as a heavy burden, not a civil right, and they didn’t want any of it. This issue was hijacked and highly politicized, and you’re just too blind to see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

Not under the law. Which is what matters legally. I don't have to accept it as a valid marriage in God's eyes. (I don't) I merely note that such marriages are legally binding under the law. My position is that it was a mistake for civil government to get into what is a sacrament of God intended to be between a man and a woman. The point is that my marriage is not threatened, if the state of Texas lets two women get married. I figure that it's between them and God.

n the past, real gays with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda loathed marriage, they acknowledged that marriage is between a man and a woman only, they saw it as a heavy burden, not a civil right, and they didn’t want any of it.

Maybe so. But there were all kinds of legal pitfalls in their way. I really believe that if those pitfalls (inheritance, power of attorney, etc.) were addressed, we wouldn't be seeing homosexual marriage now.

This issue was hijacked and highly politicized

It just doesn't trigger me. Sorry. The issue was just a plan for the extreme right to rile the suckers. But you're too blind to see it.

And it backfired big time. The vast majority of Americans just don't care as long as they don't bother us with it. As I said, it's between them and God.

 

[The Barbarian]

No we don't, not really. Banning public display of religious messaging is the lack of religious freedom,

It's not banned. My daughter and her friends did it at public school. What's banned, is the government doing it. For reasons we all understand.

"separation of church and state" is not constitutional

The man who wrote most of the Bill of Rights disagrees with you:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another."
James Madison Detached Memoranda 1817

, and neither is imposition of transgender and critical race theory.

Aside from the fact that you can't "impose trangender" or "impose critical race theory", neither are unconstitutional in the slightest. Cite me the Article you think bans these.

Those are religious doctrines disguised as "science".

Transgender issues are related to some kind of failure for genetics, anatomy, and mind to line up normally. There's a good deal of research on this. Of course, no one presents CRT as science. It's just a method of analyzing race issues that sets aside personal blame and focuses on the structure of society that makes racism possible.

Since CRT is a doctoral-level subject, completely outside of my field, I had no idea what it was until I did some looking. Suffice to say, it's not what the politicians told you it is.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Not under the law. Which is what matters legally. I don't have to accept it as a valid marriage in God's eyes. (I don't) I merely note that such marriages are legally binding under the law. My position is that it was a mistake for civil government to get into what is a sacrament of God intended to be between a man and a woman. The point is that my marriage is not threatened, if the state of Texas lets two women get married. I figure that it's between them and God.


Maybe so. But there were all kinds of legal pitfalls in their way. I really believe that if those pitfalls (inheritance, power of attorney, etc.) were addressed, we wouldn't be seeing homosexual marriage now.

It just doesn't trigger me. Sorry. The issue was just a plan for the extreme right to rile the suckers. But you're too blind to see it.

And it backfired big time. The vast majority of Americans just don't care as long as they don't bother us with it. As I said, it's between them and God.

That “extreme right” is just a boogeyman label. Its predecessors include heretic in the dark ages, counter-revolutionary and bourgeois in communist revolution, terrorist in Bush era, racist in Obama era and beyond. This is nothing but a strategy to dehumanize your opponent. Once you paint your opponents with that broad brush, you just lose all your credibility. But I do agree with you that it’s not a valid marriage in God’s eyes.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Transgender issues are related to some kind of failure for genetics, anatomy, and mind to line up normally. There's a good deal of research on this. Of course, no one presents CRT as science. It's just a method of analyzing race issues that sets aside personal blame and focuses on the structure of society that makes racism possible.

Since CRT is a doctoral-level subject, completely outside of my field, I had no idea what it was until I did some looking. Suffice to say, it's not what the politicians told you it is.

“Failure of genetics” does exist such as AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome), individuals with AIS are born as male but appearing as female, their bodies fail to respond to androgen and develop male features, it’s commonly known as “intersex”, I’ve read about it. However, that’s the exception, not the rule, and certainly not social engineering to artificially create a new focus group, you don’t push otherwise normal and healthy children into hormone therapy to “trans” their “gender” and call that “gender affirming”, that’s demonic.

 

[The Barbarian]

“Failure of genetics” does exist such as AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome), individuals with AIS are born as male but appearing as female, their bodies fail to respond to androgen and develop male features, it’s commonly known as “intersex”, I’ve read about it.

Minds, gene, bodies all make gender. If we are lucky it all lines up "correctly." If not, then things get strange. Such people deserve our respect and compassion, not anger and vindictiveness.