Another finding of human/hominid interbreeding...

[derrick09]

Hello again, this thread has to do with this one that I put up several weeks ago, where I discussed possible interbreeding of humans and neanderthals

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... g&start=30


The topic on this thread has to do with this article, (the reader's comments at the bottom are disturbing, to me at least)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40782329/ns ... ia%20files

It basically says that scientists found evidence of interbreeding now between humans and another type of hominid, the Denisovas. Here is what Fuz Rana and RTB have to say about it

http://reasons.edgeboss.net/download/re ... 1227RF.mp3

Let me know what you OECs think. Thanks and take care.

[Gman]

As a side note, some are calling these sub-humans or Neanderthals and Denisovas the nephilim in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33.

[derrick09]

Thank you Gman, I noticed when I listened to the podcast Fuz Rana admitted a couple of times that this finding made him uncomfortable, but even if this evidence is confirmed, that wouldn't in no way prove darwinian evolution would it? I mean for darwinian evolution to be proven wouldn't they have to prove things like gradualism in the fossil record, beneficial mutations, life from nonlife, and offer better responses to irreducible complexity, fine tuning, design, and information? Not to mention wouldn't they also have to show interbreeding along with more intermediates among other species of animals other than us?

[Gman]

Thank you Gman, I noticed when I listened to the podcast Fuz Rana admitted a couple of times that this finding made him uncomfortable, but even if this evidence is confirmed, that wouldn't in no way prove darwinian evolution would it? I mean for darwinian evolution to be proven wouldn't they have to prove things like gradualism in the fossil record, beneficial mutations, life from nonlife, and offer better responses to irreducible complexity, fine tuning, design, and information? Not to mention wouldn't they also have to show interbreeding along with more intermediates among other species of animals other than us?

I don't see this as being a problem at all... It's just a belief. No one really knows. But if it was true that we evolved from a lower species there would be thousands of these traditional fossils found. As of today, there are only a few of these fossil sites found (like the Neanderthal). And as far as complete skeletal remains, very very few. This is a huge blow to the Darwinist way of thinking.. Again just a belief.

[derrick09]

Thanks for the response Gman, I was curious then, if something like this doesn't prove or swing in favor of darwinian evolution (or at least in the sense of human evolution) then what kind of hoop will they have to jump through in order to accomplish such a task? I thought according to Fuz Rana's reaction I thought evolutionists had did just that. Did you listen to the podcast yet? Thanks again. Take care.

[zoegirl]

Thank you Gman, I noticed when I listened to the podcast Fuz Rana admitted a couple of times that this finding made him uncomfortable, but even if this evidence is confirmed, that wouldn't in no way prove darwinian evolution would it? I mean for darwinian evolution to be proven wouldn't they have to prove things like gradualism in the fossil record

gradualism isn't the only model out there, punctuated equilibrium provides a model wherein you wouldn't see multiple transitional stages...

, beneficial mutations, life from nonlife, and offer better responses to irreducible complexity, fine tuning, design, and information? Not to mention wouldn't they also have to show interbreeding along with more intermediates among other species of animals other than us?

showing life from non-life isn't a pre-req for evolution to be true. Among theistic evolutionists, there are some who would believe that evolution is true but abiogenesis isn't. But yes to the rest...

[derrick09]

derrick09 wrote:Thank you Gman, I noticed when I listened to the podcast Fuz Rana admitted a couple of times that this finding made him uncomfortable, but even if this evidence is confirmed, that wouldn't in no way prove darwinian evolution would it? I mean for darwinian evolution to be proven wouldn't they have to prove things like gradualism in the fossil record



gradualism isn't the only model out there, punctuated equilibrium provides a model wherein you wouldn't see multiple transitional stages...


, beneficial mutations, life from nonlife, and offer better responses to irreducible complexity, fine tuning, design, and information? Not to mention wouldn't they also have to show interbreeding along with more intermediates among other species of animals other than us?



showing life from non-life isn't a pre-req for evolution to be true. Among theistic evolutionists, there are some who would believe that evolution is true but abiogenesis isn't. But yes to the rest...

Let's see, isn't there also major problems with punctuated equilibrium as Rich states here

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Or have evolutionists given a detailed rebuttal to counterarguments like Rich's and have developed a more robust case for it? And about the theistic evolution thing, I know that is how they think, and my back up plan is to accept theistic evolution when and if sufficient evidence for macro evolution is finally revealed. I'm just in the process of seeing whether or not evolutionists already have that evidence in.

Up until now, I was starting to get confident that evolution was on it's way out due to the advancements of intelligent design and all of the major flaws that ID proponents (along with OECs) have shown evolution theory to have. But if more of this compatibility evidence for humans and homonids gets stronger (like this latest finding seems to show) it could only be a matter of time until our hand is forced to either accept theistic evolution and still be considered "reasonable Christians" or just stick our heads in the sand... or become atheists if any of you all feel that God simply cannot exist if evolution were true. I just hope that evolution hasn't become that strong yet to where we will be at that crossroads point.

[Gman]

I would take it with a grain of salt... The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

More sources: http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/ori ... tasis.html

Slow evolutionary change doesn’t seem to appear in the fossil record, so to make the data fit the scientists hypothesis, they say that Punctuated equilibrium (by episodes of very fast development of new forms) did it. Since there is no record of this gradual change in the fossil record, well it must be happening all of the sudden where we can’t see it. So “poof” there is a new species. So there must be intense evolutionary pressure that causes rapid evolution, and this population must have gotten separated somehow from the other population and then suddenly they appear, then mingle with the new population so they show up in the fossil record.

“Richard Dawkins, unlike Eldredge and Gould, believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migrational events, not evolutionary events.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

[zoegirl]

I'm not saying that punk eek doesn't have its problems, just that gradualism isn't the end-all-and-be-all of evolution anymore.

Up until now, I was starting to get confident that evolution was on it's way out due to the advancements of intelligent design and all of the major flaws that ID proponents (along with OECs) have shown evolution theory to have. But if more of this compatibility evidence for humans and homonids gets stronger (like this latest finding seems to show) it could only be a matter of time until our hand is forced to either accept theistic evolution and still be considered "reasonable Christians" or just stick our heads in the sand... or become atheists if any of you all feel that God simply cannot exist if evolution were true. I just hope that evolution hasn't become that strong yet to where we will be at that crossroads point.

Derrick, I would encourage you to not be threatened or somehow feel that you have have to have a "back-up" plan. Could God use evolution...absolutely! Can God work through mutations? Sure? Why not?

Please understand that I'm not saying the evidence is all in and the only conclusion is evolution, merely that we can't rest our faith on some idea that it couldn't have been done x way or y way.

If, in 2,5, or 10 years, they successfully have found a pathway that shows a cell developing through the model they have now, all they have show is the pathway, not the director/conductor. Is God not behind the flip of a coin or the fall of a dice?

If we are resting our faith on something that simply hasn't been discovered yet and on the idea that it won't be discovered, this is just a form of God of the Gaps and I think we ourselves are putting ourselves on shaky ground. And unnecessarily, in my opinion.....Genesis is a beautiful book and shows His Majesty, His immense power, His glory. It shows that He did it, He did it orderly, and with purpose. Doesn't show in what steps or what it would look like to us. We are only seeing one view. IN my mind, too long have atheists controlled what we are to accept. Somehow we have caved to this idea that if evolution is true, we must throw our hands in the air and give up our faith.

just some thoughts

[derrick09]

Well let's see, personally I"m ok with becoming a theistic evolutionist if but only IF, the evidence fully and specifically points in the direction of macro evolution. If you want to see my "back up plan" or as I would put it "back up plans" with an S, this thread fully explains my plans if things get rocky for the logical pillars of Christian Theism

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... rance+plan

But I will admit, when and if I do become a theistic evolutionist, I won't necessairly like it because after all creation theories and Intelligent Design have given the overall case for Christian Theism additional support over the years. But I"m not really worried about losing my faith over this.

What scares me even more is, how will most of your run of the mill Christians or Christians who are only casually involved in apologetics (ie yecs or even casual oecs who are personally against the ideas of evolution) what will happen to their faith if evolution really gains evidential grounds? Because evolution has been so demonized and viewed as a bad thing (I'll admit even I over the years tended to have that view) that when and if it gets proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the wave of huge media coverage that will follow it. And the fact that atheists tend to always proclaim that they "own" the idea of evolution.

If these following things end up materializing, it would become a "perfect storm" for a mass exodus away from Christianity. Or it has the potential to be at the very least. People will then be at the crossroads point that I mentioned a post or two ago. Which for people like you, me, and Gman for instance wouldn't be as difficult as it would be for most other Christians who have had little or no background in apologetics. So all in all, that's my main area of concern is for other Christians and not so much for myself, even though I would not be happy nor as "comfortable" being a theistic evolutionist.

[jlay]

The evidence in this case is a tip of a pinky and a tooth.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a full artist rendering of this creature, along with an article on its social habits, etc.

I think the important thing is to learn to study these things for ourselves and spot the errors in logic, reasoning and science in these articles. And, to speak out on it, when we see it.
Certainly, if anyone comes with fast hard proof that particles to people evolution is happening, we would be remiss not to accept it. But we would be equally remiss to not know how to see where erroneous liberties are being taken in the name of science.

[zoegirl]

it also points out the frustration of interpreting fossils and when to decide if two fossils are different species.

[Gman]

If these following things end up materializing, it would become a "perfect storm" for a mass exodus away from Christianity. Or it has the potential to be at the very least. People will then be at the crossroads point that I mentioned a post or two ago. Which for people like you, me, and Gman for instance wouldn't be as difficult as it would be for most other Christians who have had little or no background in apologetics. So all in all, that's my main area of concern is for other Christians and not so much for myself, even though I would not be happy nor as "comfortable" being a theistic evolutionist.

As far as a mass "exodus" the hammer that has been pounding on the Bible has weathered away many moons ago.. In actuality, I think just the opposite. I really think the mass exodus will be coming from the Darwinian evolutionists.. I think that the Ardi find was just another prime example of that. Basically many believe that all truth claims can be answered by observation. The problem with that however is that your worldview or presuppositions will dictate to you how to interpret the observational evidence, and in many many cases the information is just too scant.. There really is no naturalism, because it will always be defined by the individual.

[derrick09]

Great point Gman, I certainly hope you are right and that I'm wrong. Before the interbreeding thing came up I was under the impression that the darwinian camp was in the process of crumbling. In addition because of the rise in popularity of intelligent design and popular books by Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer had offered some very compelling arguments against evolution. Now I do know that evolution camps are doing all they can to combat these people and their arguments and I thought something like this interbreeding thing was a clever something that the darwinian camp had up their sleeves but I'm hoping that Fuz Rana's reaction to this interbreeding thing was just premature and it's only a small blip on the radar so to speak when compared to all the mass counter arguments and counter evidence that goes against darwinian evolution. I certainly hope that 2011 will bring more data that goes against darwinism. But anyway, thanks again G, God bless.

[musician]

I'm not saying that punk eek doesn't have its problems, just that gradualism isn't the end-all-and-be-all of evolution anymore.

To me this would be hilarious since the age of the planet and man have been stretched and stretched and stretched to make this gradual change "possible".

I am curious to know why "it happened" is a justification for science but not for God though.

- N