The chicken or the egg? Both.

[Kylie]

Go to the source: Agassiz. Pretty sure I can't improve on him. And the bible people would be all over it in a heartbeat. That said... yeah, I'd probably toss in my buck and a half.

I was talking more about discussing whatever real-world evidence you believe there is for polygenism.

Why do you present Agassiz as the authority when he didn't even know about the genetic evidence for common descent? He is literally a century and a half out of date.

 

[Ligurian]

Not at all. Evolution, if true, would mean an egg came first, before a true chicken anyway, but creation (or at least 7 day type creation) , if true, would mean the chicken came first as God would just create a fully formed chicken and rooster to begin with.

Creation myths happened everywhere... they don't belong only to the bible. And they don't all go-lock-step with the 7-day myth. Plato gave it the full treatment in Timeaus... creation myth and science together.

 

[Ligurian]

Why do you present Agassiz as the authority when he didn't even know about the genetic evidence for common descent?

Sorta like the "mankind is all of one blood" christian theory? Which blood-type would that be, exactly?
How did they manage to mix without killing each other off?

You're probably going to say evolution, right? But where are all the intermediate stages that should show humans doing all this evolving? I haven't read anything recently on this... maybe you have?

There's a new post at CF about two identical twins getting different results on several DNA tests. Genetic evidence?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm more of an Agassiz type of person... Polygenism makes sense to me.

Agassiz seems unexpectedly modern for you. I don't know much about his position on life, but it would seem it is not one that can be supported anymore. Perhaps with Agassiz we should stick to glaciers.

 

[Kylie]

Sorta like the "mankind is all of one blood" christian theory? Which blood-type would that be, exactly?
How did they manage to mix without killing each other off?

You're probably going to say evolution, right? But where are all the intermediate stages that should show humans doing all this evolving? I haven't read anything recently on this... maybe you have?

There's a new post at CF about two identical twins getting different results on several DNA tests. Genetic evidence?

There is a huge amount of evidence for Human evolution. Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm definitely not one of those "out of Africa" people. CroMagnon Aurignation gets my vote.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you think that Cro Magnon was an ancestor of present day humans, you're somewhat correct. If you think Cro Magnon was the initial precursor population for Homo Sapiens Sapiens (behaviorally modern humans), then you're way off base.

Cro Magnon is just a name for a regional grouping of anatomically modern humans (Homo Sapiens) which underwent some interbreeding with Homo Neanderthal in the same area. That original Homo Sapiens population evolved in Africa and spread up to Europe, travelling via the Middle East and Western Asia, circa 40,000 to 70,000 years ago.

They're a regional grouping of early modern humans. Anatomically and behaviourally, they're incredibly close to early modern humans in other regions. Their stature and general build was about the same, although their facial features would be slightly more 'robust' than those of current Europeans and their skin notably darker (pale skin not having evolved until ~25,000-40,000 years ago).

'Cro Magnon' are basically similar to earlier anatomically modern human populations in other regions. We can even chart their move out of Eastern and Northern Africa, into West and Central Asia and then across into Central and Western Europe. They're not even that anatomically or behaviourally different from populations in parts of Africa that predate them by at least 235,000 years.

Who's this "we" of whom you speak? ... ... I'm also not a herd animal. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.

We as in humans. The beings who collect evidence about this sort of stuff.

 

[Ligurian]

There is a huge amount of evidence for Human evolution. Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

Opinions vary. Some folks think that alcoholism is due to Neanderthal genes. Are they right?

The first thing I noticed on your link is DNA evidence.
Since the identical twins on a thread here were said to have different DNA by five different companies... do their testing procedures change from person to person?
If it's that hard to get a consensus with fresh DNA...

 

[Ligurian]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you think that Cro Magnon was an ancestor of present day humans, you're somewhat correct. If you think Cro Magnon was the initial precursor population for Homo Sapiens Sapiens (behaviorally modern humans), then you're way off base.

That's not what I think. Present day humans are not all CroMagons... but some Europeans were/are.

"Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. Geneticists now show that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically. They conclude that the Neandertal people, who lived in Europe for nearly 300,000 years, are not the ancestors of modern Europeans."--Science Daily

CroMagnon is an Aurignation site. The same red ochre burials happened from Liguria to Paviland Cave in Wales.

"Avienus makes only one direct reference to the Celts when he mentions that beyond the tin-producing Oestrymnides was a land now occupied by the Celts, who took it from the Ligurians."--Cunliffe, Ancient Celts

And of course the Druids weren't Celts, even according to Rhys... they were the indigenous Silures, a tribe of the Ligurians. The Roman rhotacism added -r- to the Greek Ligues calling them Ligures. They would also have added -r- to Sallyes making it Salures/Silures. Dawkins "Cave Hunting" shows all the steps from point A to point B, and the name Lloegrwys is Ligurians. The Lloegrwys are one of the three foundation tribes in the Welsh Triads.

If you go by DNA alone, or follow modern mythology, you will come up with either the theory that everything comes from the east, or south. Some writer called the first part of this set "the oriental mirage". And the "Out of Africa" myth still seems to find believers as well. Lefkowitz wrote "Not Out of Africa" for those of us who believe that Athena was Greek, and looked like the ancient statues of her.

 

[Kylie]

Opinions vary.

Not when it comes to actual biologists studying this stuff.

Some folks think that alcoholism is due to Neanderthal genes. Are they right?

No idea.

The first thing I noticed on your link is DNA evidence.
Since the identical twins on a thread here were said to have different DNA by five different companies... do their testing procedures change from person to person?
If it's that hard to get a consensus with fresh DNA...

Those companies are not doing scientific research.

 

[Ligurian]

Opinions vary.
Some folks think that alcoholism is due to Neanderthal genes. Are they right?

The first thing I noticed on your link is DNA evidence.
Since the identical twins on a thread here were said to have different DNA by five different companies... do their testing procedures change from person to person?
If it's that hard to get a consensus with fresh DNA...

Not when it comes to actual biologists studying this stuff.

No idea.

Those companies are not doing scientific research.

Medical Lab Techs run the DNA tests... what they find can get you a prison sentence.
But it's not scientific research? Yikes!
But wait... at least one of those 5 DNA testing places admitted to sharing results with the feds... so the feds must think it's "scientific" enough to get a convicion.

 

[Kylie]

Medical Lab Techs run the DNA tests... what they find can get you a prison sentence. But it's not scientific research? Yikes!

So? The fact that they are getting such varied results proves that they are not doing it to a high enough standard.

Or do you think DNA is imaginary, and that's why there are such different results?

 

[Ligurian]

So? The fact that they are getting such varied results proves that they are not doing it to a high enough standard.

Or do you think DNA is imaginary, and that's why there are such different results?

But wait... at least one of those 5 DNA testing places admitted to sharing results with the feds... so the feds must think it's "scientific" enough to get a convicion.


I think DNA, like Archaeology and Linguistics, etc., is a tool whose results can be manipulated to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. It doesn't have to even be logical or proven. People see what they expect to see.

The DNA people take a survey of the area and look for people whose last name hadn't been changed for several generations... or at least they used to... are they doing something different today?

Remember the Archaeologists who were told to look for the Hittites? When they uncovered a first layer, they named them the Hittites. Then they found a different people under that layer, which they called the Hatti. So the Aryan invaders of the Hittites were called the Hittites...

Linguistics does the same thing. Remember the Sumerian question, where one man wrecked his entire reputation by saying Sumerian was a secret priest-language?

Or how about the story that Greek Philosophy was really the secret wisdom of Egyptian Masonic Lodges?

 

[Kylie]

But wait... at least one of those 5 DNA testing places admitted to sharing results with the feds... so the feds must think it's "scientific" enough to get a convicion.

I think DNA, like Archaeology and Linguistics, is a tool whose results can be manipulated.

The DNA people take a survey of the area and look for people whose last name hadn't been changed for several generations... or at least they used to... are they doing something different today?

Remember the Archaeologists who were told to look for the Hittites? When they uncovered a first layer, they named them the Hittites. Then they found a different people under that layer, which they called the Hatti. So the Aryan invaders of the Hittites were called the Hitties...

Linguistics does the same thing. Remember the Sumerian question, where one man wrecked his entire reputation by saying Sumerian was a secret priest-language?

Don't get your science from law enforcement. Get it from scientists. I can imagine that these unreliable results will give lawyers plenty of grounds for appeals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Medical Lab Techs run the DNA tests... what they find can get you a prison sentence.
But it's not scientific research? Yikes!
But wait... at least one of those 5 DNA testing places admitted to sharing results with the feds... so the feds must think it's "scientific" enough to get a convicion.

Nope. That's not scientific research. It's diagnostic testing.

It isn't scientific research anymore than changing your oil is automotive engineering.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Remember the Archaeologists who were told to look for the Hittites? When they uncovered a first layer, they named them the Hittites. Then they found a different people under that layer, which they called the Hatti. So the Aryan invaders of the Hittites were called the Hitties...

Not sure what your point is.

The Hittites and their Hittite Empire was a Bronze Age civilization/empire (known as the Hatti in Akkadian) in central Anatolia with a capital at Hattusa. They spoke a Indo-European language. The ones who in the 14th century BCE controlled the Northern Levant and what is now northern Syria and most of Anatolia . They fought the Egyptians at Kadesh in May 1274 BCE. The Hittite state failed in about 1180 BCE with the Late Bronze Age collapse under their king Suppiluliuma II.

The classical Hittites probably were invaders into central Anatolia, because they did speak a different language than the civilization that existed earlier in Hattusa which is now known as the Hatti, whose Hattian language was non-Indo-European and non-Semetic.

Not sure what your problem with the Archeologists is. They are the reason we know these things about the Hittites and Hattians.

 

[Ligurian]

The Hittites and their Hittite Empire was a Bronze Age civilization/empire (known as the Hatti in Akkadian) in central Anatolia with a capital at Hattusa. They spoke a Indo-European language. The ones who in the 14th century BCE controlled the Northern Levant and what is now northern Syria and most of Anatolia . They fought the Egyptians at Kadesh in May 1274 BCE. The Hittite state failed in about 1180 BCE with the Late Bronze Age collapse under their king Suppiluliuma II.

The classical Hittites probably were invaders into central Anatolia, because they did speak a different language than the civilization that existed earlier in Hattusa which is now known as the Hatti, whose Hattian language was non-Indo-European and non-Semetic.

Hitties called themselves "inhabitants of the city Nesha", according to this website:

"The Bronze Age civilization of Central Anatolia had disappeared from the pages of history without a trace, but, thanks to the Assyrians and their Hebrew contemporaries, the Iron Age Hittites survived to enter into the western historical tradition. Thus, when sites in northern Syria and southern Turkey began to be investigated, it was only natural to apply to them the name Hittite, meaning the inhabitants of the Hatti-Land. Such terminology is correct: these people are the true Hittites, the Hittim of the Old Testament."

Expedition Magazine | The Hittites and the Aegean World

<p>The first thing to realize about the Hittites is that they are not Hittites. The sad fact is that we […]</p>

www.penn.museum

Interesting website. Nesha must be a city of the lands they came from. If they're like the Mitanni (invaders of Hurrian lands), they're another batch of Aryans... the same thing happened to Armenia.

Kind of odd, actually... since the table of nations says the Hittites were Canaanites from Ham's stock. (Sayce explains it by saying Canaanite was a geographical designation, not ethnic.) But it gets really odd, when you realize the Hittites only took the land after 1200b.c. ... after the Trojan War ... which means that's the earliest Gen.10 could have been written. And if that website is correct... the Arameans dominated Anatolia. Arameans are Semites, right?

Thank you for making me do this research.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The first thing I noticed on your link is DNA evidence.
Since the identical twins on a thread here were said to have different DNA by five different companies... do their testing procedures change from person to person?
If it's that hard to get a consensus with fresh DNA...

The methods used by popular 'send in a sample' DNA testing companies are somewhat unreliable, from sampling to analysis, so their results should be treated with caution.

Having said that, well-controlled scientific testing of DNA from identical twins shows that they differ by an average of 5.2 mutations, mostly single base changes. In terms of establishing genetic ancestry, such random changes are irrelevant - on average, every individual has around 42 unique mutations. It's the patterns of consistent similarities and differences over many generations that are relevant.

 

[stevevw]

Hi there,

So I have come to the conclusion, that what we understand as the beginning, rests on entering into a relationship. That relationship, under the right circumstances, leads to a stable interaction with the world - from the point of which, what is created in that beginning, can be multiplied (that is, to the world). In the past, this has been seen as an "either/or" relationship; if the relationship is not there, then you will die. But what we see in the act of creation, is actually simpler still! What we see in creation, is that the parents develop a relationship with the child, which encourages the child to grow.

So what is this "relationship"? How does it "encourage"? That relationship is "projection", one parent projects a child onto the other and the other maintains, until the child is able to grow. In other words, you were the child you were, because your parents extended a projection between them. By extending a projection between them, you were able to develop a will, that part of your mother's soul and part of your father's soul were able to house a new soul for. The soul was for the will, which was for the projection. You don't need to study this, this is just something you have, which enables you to do all the other things you do.

So your parents projected and you came to have a soul, and after you were born, you began to identify with the projection your parents had of you and your soul began to negotiate the will that was in you, because of that projection - this is what made you strong! It is being strong, that Jesus intended you to enjoy when He brought your parents together. Jesus knew that your parents would project, what they did, and that you would be created as a result. Your parents did not know how to project or handle projection, without the relationship that Jesus created in them, for the purpose of projecting you, one onto the other.

So it is that you were there with your parents, in the beginning, projecting. You were both the interaction of the projection with your parents and the meaning of the projection itself. You were able to reject the projection and become nothing, or you were able to add to the projection and become talented - this is the meaning of entering into a relationship with God, through projection. It is a "both/and" relationship. God means for you to be able to interact with Him, that way you become an "intelligent design" of which there are almost innumerable ways of being. This is the beginning of faith.

I hope you find this nourishing.

Thanks.

I think we were both in that as conscious beings we were created as an idea in the mind of God. The conditions that created existence had in it the conditions for conscious life from the beginning.