Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP is correct. In fact the closest "ancestor" that is even possible would be the Neanderthal, but recent studies show humans had no relations with them either. The Neanderthal is more closely related to the chimp than the human.
No, God is not a fish. We were made in God's image. It is massively incorrect to even think humans could come from fish. Such great changes would have killed off the animal that would have come from the fish. The coding just would never allow such strange changes. It would result in sterility.
I have said before, old chum, you know nothing about this subject and do not want to.
P.s In anticipation of links to 'genetic infertility' pages, yes, infertility does have genetic causes in many cases and perhaps all, but there is nothing DNa, chromosomes and genes as a whole in either amoeba or fish that you automatically sterilize ..well any mutation leading in the direction of evolution. The suggestion is absurd. If that was the case micro -evolution would be impossible - any kind of breeding could not happen.
e.g " but recent studies show humans had no relations with them (Neanderthals) either" Utterly. False. As are your claims about DNA coding (1). There is nothing in Fish or indeed amoeba DNA that would prevent eventual evolution into dinosaur, mammal and human form. I'm not sure therre is anything in insect DNA that would prevent it, but the evolutionary line is now so adapted that it could never feasibly lead to fish, mammals or birds.
You are simply making incorrect claims in order to produce spurious 'evidence' dressed up as scientific research "recent studies" in order to prop up your unsupported faith -based claims.
Therefore any posts you make on the subject are uninformed, inaccurate and quite without merit. I would not even bother to say so, were it not that the unwary might take what you post on evolutionary matters seriously. (your posts on the Bible have more merit, of course).
(1) with the Unwary in mind, I must explain that fish DNA can through adaptation derived from beneficial random mutations change to other fishlike forms (called 'Micro -evolution/within species (2) - in terms comprehensible to Creationists) Tiktalalik was as good an example as anyone could ask of a fish turning into a land animal - as though Lungfish and lobefins wasn't evidence enough.
Examples of many feathered dinosaurs are transitional forms to birds - as if Archaeopterix wasn't enough.
The Cetan sequence is evidence of a land animal becoming a whale -as if the evidence of the handlike forelimb in sea -mammals wasn't evidence enough. These are just three of the best examples of many transitional fossils, of which of course Australopithecus is the pivotal example for human evolution - an ape that walked upright.
Eusebius has rejected all this and refused to consider it and insist on the absurd cows from whales, humans from fish and other Crocoduck nonsense.
(2) since of course current examples of speciation - one group that can no longer interbreed with another - are rejected as examples of 'speciation' by creationists -understandably - as they are still the same creature. So I play with their rules and their pieces: a creaure that looks like a fish turning into something with legs. Something that looks like a lizard turning into something like a bird. Something like a crocodile turning into something like a fish! Yes - evolution can work both ways. And of course something like a shrew turning into horses, bears, elephants and apes.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-11-2015 at 06:22 AM..
Ah Eusebius . . . your lack of knowledge is so frustrating. If you are NOT black African or Sub-Saharan African you most likely have between 1-3% of Neanderthal DNA in your genome. Our ancestors definitely had relations with them.
No, they have proven that humans had no sexual contact with Neanderthals at all.
I have said before, old chum, you know nothing about this subject and do not want to.
P.s In anticipation of links to 'genetic infertility' pages, yes, infertility does have genetic causes in many cases and perhaps all, but there is nothing DNa, chromosomes and genes as a whole in either amoeba or fish that you automatically sterilize ..well any mutation leading in the direction of evolution. The suggestion is absurd. If that was the case micro -evolution would be impossible - any kind of breeding could not happen.
e.g " but recent studies show humans had no relations with them (Neanderthals) either" Utterly. False. As are your claims about DNA coding (1). There is nothing in Fish or indeed amoeba DNA that would prevent eventual evolution into dinosaur, mammal and human form. I'm not sure therre is anything in insect DNA that would prevent it, but the evolutionary line is now so adapted that it could never feasibly lead to fish, mammals or birds.
You are simply making incorrect claims in order to produce spurious 'evidence' dressed up as scientific research "recent studies" in order to prop up your unsupported faith -based claims.
Therefore any posts you make on the subject are uninformed, inaccurate and quite without merit. I would not even bother to say so, were it not that the unwary might take what you post on evolutionary matters seriously. (your posts on the Bible have more merit, of course).
(1) with the Unwary in mind, I must explain that fish DNA can through adaptation derived from beneficial random mutations change to other fishlike forms (called 'Micro -evolution/within species (2) - in terms comprehensible to Creationists) Tiktalalik was as good an example as anyone could ask of a fish turning into a land animal - as though Lungfish and lobefins wasn't evidence enough.
Examples of many feathered dinosaurs are transitional forms to birds - as if Archaeopterix wasn't enough.
The Cetan sequence is evidence of a land animal becoming a whale -as if the evidence of the handlike forelimb in sea -mammals wasn't evidence enough. These are just three of the best examples of many transitional fossils, of which of course Australopithecus is the pivotal example for human evolution - an ape that walked upright.
Eusebius has rejected all this and refused to consider it and insist on the absurd cows from whales, humans from fish and other Crocoduck nonsense.
(2) since of course current examples of speciation - one group that can no longer interbreed with another - are rejected as examples of 'speciation' by creationists -understandably - as they are still the same creature. So I play with their rules and their pieces: a creaure that looks like a fish turning into something with legs. Something that looks like a lizard turning into something like a bird. Something like a crocodile turning into something like a fish! Yes - evolution can work both ways. And of course something like a shrew turning into horses, bears, elephants and apes.
Ah Eusebius . . . your lack of knowledge is so frustrating. If you are NOT black African or Sub-Saharan African you most likely have between 1-3% of Neanderthal DNA in your genome. Our ancestors definitely had relations with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
No, they have proven that humans had no sexual contact with Neanderthals at all.
DNA doesn't lie, Eusebius. But I forget you do not care what science actually says because God is magic.
It doesn't matter if we had "contact". But my guess is since we make "contact" with sheep and female nandies are way prettier, we probably did with them. There were a dozen pre humans and the number narrowed as the climate changed and some didn't adapt. DNA is like a delayed fuse. It has been terra forming since the start.
Why do people need Omni-dude to say "poof there it is" instead of the way Omni-dude wrote the rock record?
"Recent findings revealed that Neanderthals interbred with ancestors of modern humans when modern humans began spreading out of Africa — 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of anyone living outside Africa today is Neanderthal in origin."
But we already did this. I can't claim to be an expert in the area but a common ancestor does not have to be Neandertnal.
'Lucy' is simply discarded by referring to an arboreal ancestor and implying that 'Lucy' might not have been bipedal when the evidence of the skeleton indicates that she was.
The site also fails to mention that deleterious mutations don't last long compared to beneficial ones.
So I'm already suspicion of this study, which looks like another example of cherry picking quotes and mixing with some personal calculations which gives exactly the result he wanted.
Look. It's the old problem of dismissing the evidence that something did happen by some personal argument that it couldn't happen based on an area where there are a lot of unanswered questions.
This just doesn't look right "Simultaneous, rapid changes in human abilities suggest replacement of previously existing hominids with modern humans. The fact that all these events happened ~50,000 years ago precludes any possibility that previously existing hominids could be our ancestors, since Homo erectus died out 300,000 years ago, and Homo neanderthalensis has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor"
I think you misunderstand. So far as I can see, the site is not claiming that humans don't have Neanderthal DNA, but that Neanderthals cannot be our ancestor.
Nobody says they were. The shared a common ancestor with us. Homo erectus died out - ir rather evolved into Homo habilis. Just a micro evolutionary change.
The site has a lot of references, some impressive -looking figures and a chart showing I'm not sure what, but the more I look the more suspect it seems. Yes, it is charting the skulls of Australopithecus and the later humans and arging that the 'rapids morphological shifts' are too great to support evolution.
I'm afraid that the rarity of early human fossils, the long times involved and the relatively rapid changes with species - and even creationists admit this is a fact - will invalidate this 'we want an example of every single transitional form from A to B' argument. Yes, this is the old 'incomplete record' argument, because it is valid. It is NOT valid to dismiss it because it is trotted out regularly in response to the old objection that major shifts are seen in the fossil record.
If this writer knew his evolution and was prepared to be fair, he should have recognized that this is valid factor. That he ignores it further raises doubts about the argument he makes.
P.s I think you misread the site. They are not saying that humans and Neanderthals never interbred (the DNA seems to show they did) but that they were not genetically linked in the DNA in a way that would make Neanderthals our ancestors. Nor they would. Nobody says they were.
It is that this site produces some figures that somehow argues that Neanderthals were the only 'Other' species around at the time he has worked out that could be the ancestor of humans. As I say, he has got into this position by dismissing out of hand the ancestors we do point to on the basis of this rather dodgy cranial chart of his.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-11-2015 at 12:14 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... you most certainly did. 
