Both neanderthals and humans mated with each other.What does your creation interpretation say?

[abelcainsbrother]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

[Audie]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

So you laugh at things you don't even dimly grasp.
How clever is that?

Ive 5 years of univerdity biology. You write like a 7th grader.
You see nothing in me but your own imagination.

Neanderthal was what he was. All organisms trace
to common ancesters. "Perspective" wont change that
though it leads the gullible and uneducated down
the rabbit hole, where you are.

[abelcainsbrother]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

So you laugh at things you don't even dimly grasp.
How clever is that?

Ive 5 years of univerdity biology. You write like a 7th grader.
You see nothing in me but your own imagination.

Neanderthal was what he was. All organisms trace
to common ancesters. "Perspective" wont change that
though it leads the gullible and uneducated down
the rabbit hole, where you are.

Insulting the way I write does not make me wrong and you right because you write better than I do. Evidence and substance is what matters the most.I've been trying to help you see the flaws in evolution science but you just refuse to acknowledge it.I can't help it you choose to believe what you want to,but I know the truth. I am not just making up stuff I have not researched and I have no reason to do that. Don't be mad at me for exposing it and telling the truth about evolution science and the evidence it uses. I cannot change your mind,you can believe anything you choose to,but you keep ignoring the solid reasons I've given that shows how weak the evidence in evolution science is,but if you ignore it because I don't write well or whatever other reason you can think up?I cannot change your mind. I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Cladistics is a joke for how they came up with common ancestors.

[Audie]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

So you laugh at things you don't even dimly grasp.
How clever is that?

Ive 5 years of univerdity biology. You write like a 7th grader.
You see nothing in me but your own imagination.

Neanderthal was what he was. All organisms trace
to common ancesters. "Perspective" wont change that
though it leads the gullible and uneducated down
the rabbit hole, where you are.

Insulting the way I write does not make me wrong and you right because you write better than I do. Evidence and substance is what matters the most.I've been trying to help you see the flaws in evolution science but you just refuse to acknowledge it.I can't help it you choose to believe what you want to,but I know the truth. I am not just making up stuff I have not researched and I have no reason to do that. Don't be mad at me for exposing it and telling the truth about evolution science and the evidence it uses. I cannot change your mind,you can believe anything you choose to,but you keep ignoring the solid reasons I've given that shows how weak the evidence in evolution science is,but if you ignore it because I don't write well or whatever other reason you can think up?I cannot change your mind. I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Cladistics is a joke for how they came up with common ancestors.

No, no, no and no. You think cladistics is a joke for religious reasons, and, because you
know next to nothing about it.

As my Dad put it, the less you know about something, the easier it is to be an expert.

You, with not enough in your head to pass test one in a freshman class, believe you know more than all the scientists on earth.

Some people would question whether such a belief is reasonable, or even sane.

[B. W.]

No, no, no and no. You think cladistics is a joke for religious reasons, and, because you
know next to nothing about it.

As my Dad put it, the less you know about something, the easier it is to be an expert.

You, with not enough in your head to pass test one in a freshman class, believe you know more than all the scientists on earth.

Some people would question whether such a belief is reasonable, or even sane.

Let's re-phrase this...

No, no, no and no. You think the bible is a joke for secular reasons, and, because you know next to nothing about it.

As my Dad put it, the less you know about something, the easier it is to be an expert.

You, with not enough in your head to pass test one in a freshman class, believe you know more than all the Christians on earth.

Some people would question whether such a belief is reasonable, or even sane?

It cuts both ways Audie...

Are you sane?

Cladistics' is another discipline and not pure biology. You maybe confused over terms as Transformed Cladistics resolved to settle some of these problems with cladistic approach. You may be referring to Homology and blending it with classical caldistic model. There is Ohnology, Xenology, and Gametology if I recall correctly from the school daze's... associated with homologly etc and etc ad infi..

Will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one as folks can confuse terms used in sciences because such terms shift and drift from one extreme to another during the passing of years based on new findings. Often such findings are based on current fads and clicks in the world of PhD'dom... and change over time. You are obviously not old enough with enough life experience to have seen once widely held scientific views on evolution be disproven and debunked as hoaxes. I see that you were schooled with a pre-designed agenda and outcome in mind and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. So sad...
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

All animals can trace back to common ancestors.

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

So you laugh at things you don't even dimly grasp.
How clever is that?

Ive 5 years of univerdity biology. You write like a 7th grader.
You see nothing in me but your own imagination.

Neanderthal was what he was. All organisms trace
to common ancesters. "Perspective" wont change that
though it leads the gullible and uneducated down
the rabbit hole, where you are.

Insulting the way I write does not make me wrong and you right because you write better than I do. Evidence and substance is what matters the most.I've been trying to help you see the flaws in evolution science but you just refuse to acknowledge it.I can't help it you choose to believe what you want to,but I know the truth. I am not just making up stuff I have not researched and I have no reason to do that. Don't be mad at me for exposing it and telling the truth about evolution science and the evidence it uses. I cannot change your mind,you can believe anything you choose to,but you keep ignoring the solid reasons I've given that shows how weak the evidence in evolution science is,but if you ignore it because I don't write well or whatever other reason you can think up?I cannot change your mind. I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Cladistics is a joke for how they came up with common ancestors.

No, no, no and no. You think cladistics is a joke for religious reasons, and, because you
know next to nothing about it.

As my Dad put it, the less you know about something, the easier it is to be an expert.

You, with not enough in your head to pass test one in a freshman class, believe you know more than all the scientists on earth.

Some people would question whether such a belief is reasonable, or even sane.

It has very little to do with religious reasons like you think. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and would speak out about how weak the evidence is in evolution science just as much. There are atheists who know the evidence is weak too and I've read his book and he is right,because I verified it. I did not just read it and believe it. I looked into myself. He is ignored too,but he is right.

If you think evolution proves the bible wrong? You're wrong. I reject it based on its own evidence and I've backed up everything I've said too,you just ignore it. You know you can choose to believe anything you choose to and nobody can cange your mind and you are doing this. Don't be mad at me though just because we don't agree about evolution. Don't take it personal because I'm not attacking you I'm against the evidence used in evolution science. It is weak. You were indoctrinated my friend if you believe life evolves based on the evidence.

[Audie]

I see you have not looked into "cladistics" to see how much of a joke it is when it comes to how they decide what is a common ancestor. But this thread is not really about evolution,it is about wanting to know what the other creation perspectives say about this neanderthal DNA in humans.I was just wondering what they say about it from a biblical perspective.

So you laugh at things you don't even dimly grasp.
How clever is that?

Ive 5 years of univerdity biology. You write like a 7th grader.
You see nothing in me but your own imagination.

Neanderthal was what he was. All organisms trace
to common ancesters. "Perspective" wont change that
though it leads the gullible and uneducated down
the rabbit hole, where you are.

Insulting the way I write does not make me wrong and you right because you write better than I do. Evidence and substance is what matters the most.I've been trying to help you see the flaws in evolution science but you just refuse to acknowledge it.I can't help it you choose to believe what you want to,but I know the truth. I am not just making up stuff I have not researched and I have no reason to do that. Don't be mad at me for exposing it and telling the truth about evolution science and the evidence it uses. I cannot change your mind,you can believe anything you choose to,but you keep ignoring the solid reasons I've given that shows how weak the evidence in evolution science is,but if you ignore it because I don't write well or whatever other reason you can think up?I cannot change your mind. I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may. Cladistics is a joke for how they came up with common ancestors.

No, no, no and no. You think cladistics is a joke for religious reasons, and, because you
know next to nothing about it.

As my Dad put it, the less you know about something, the easier it is to be an expert.

You, with not enough in your head to pass test one in a freshman class, believe you know more than all the scientists on earth.

Some people would question whether such a belief is reasonable, or even sane.

It has very little to do with religious reasons like you think. I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and would speak out about how weak the evidence is in evolution science just as much. There are atheists who know the evidence is weak too and I've read his book and he is right,because I verified it. I did not just read it and believe it. I looked into myself. He is ignored too,but he is right.

If you think evolution proves the bible wrong? You're wrong. I reject it based on its own evidence and I've backed up everything I've said too,you just ignore it. You know you can choose to believe anything you choose to and nobody can cange your mind and you are doing this. Don't be mad at me though just because we don't agree about evolution. Don't take it personal because I'm not attacking you I'm against the evidence used in evolution science. It is weak. You were indoctrinated my friend if you believe life evolves based on the evidence.

I will overlook all the falsehoods and general nonsense, and ask one question:

What data do you have that shows ToE to be false?

Not your opinion, not your failure of due diligence, not the bible, not me, not atheists, not anything but just some facts.

How about one fact.

Name one fact contrary to ToE.

[IceMobster]

I will overlook all the falsehoods and general nonsense, and ask one question:...

Casual autistic Audie.

Won't answer a damn thing that is being asked but just goes on with the /ignore + you-are-so-self-indulgent scenario.

[Philip]

"Evolution is fact" vs. Evolution is an unproven and very problematic theory vs. Evolution (in the classical sense - simple organisms to evermore complex ones) is definitely false (for a variety of reasons) - to infinity and beyond! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Again, WHY does anyone on any side find it so important to prove or disprove evolution. Even IF true, it's so late to the date, so as to be a meaningless argument of causes secondary to that which truly matters - least in terms of theism vs. non-theism. Audie's problem is that she knows that even if evolution occurred, that all that made it possible didn't create itself, didn't pop into existence without some organizing entity of immense power and intelligence. So, she amuses herself with pointless arguments over evolutionary mechanisms that even the scientists don't agree upon. And ACB argues relentlessly against evolution - and WHY? Because if evolution is fact, it still must have had an intelligent, organizing cause and designer. Even randomness of things is dependent upon OTHER pre-existing and totally necessary things. And even RANDOM things must be created. ACB, you need to rewind your argument to things that matter - things that are over 10 billion years before there was ANY physical thing, chemistry, biology, etc. that would eventually have provided the foundations, structures and designs to have made ANY life possible, much less for it to have evolved.

Really, you guys are killing server space with this relentlessly arguing over the irrelevance of evolution. And Audie can't prove it to be fact, and she sure as heck can't explain how it could have ever been made possible without a Cause/a Designer. And ACB is NEVER going to prove her wrong - even if she likely is. So, let's stop this irrelevant snoozefest. PLEASE! If you must argue about something, argue about what is REALLY relevant as to the central debate on this website - that is theism vs. non-theism, and if theism - WHICH God created?

[abelcainsbrother]

"Evolution is fact" vs. Evolution is an unproven and very problematic theory vs. Evolution (in the classical sense - simple organisms to evermore complex ones) is definitely false (for a variety of reasons) - to infinity and beyond! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Again, WHY does anyone on any side find it so important to prove or disprove evolution. Even IF true, it's so late to the date, so as to be a meaningless argument of causes secondary to that which truly matters - least in terms of theism vs. non-theism. Audie's problem is that she knows that even if evolution occurred, that all that made it possible didn't create itself, didn't pop into existence without some organizing entity of immense power and intelligence. So, she amuses herself with pointless arguments over evolutionary mechanisms that even the scientists don't agree upon. And ACB argues relentlessly against evolution - and WHY? Because if evolution is fact, it still must have had an intelligent, organizing cause and designer. Even randomness of things is dependent upon OTHER pre-existing and totally necessary things. And even RANDOM things must be created. ACB, you need to rewind your argument to things that matter - things that are over 10 billion years before there was ANY physical thing, chemistry, biology, etc. that would eventually have provided the foundations, structures and designs to have made ANY life possible, much less for it to have evolved.

Really, you guys are killing server space with this relentlessly arguing over the irrelevance of evolution. And Audie can't prove it to be fact, and she sure as heck can't explain how it could have ever been made possible without a Cause/a Designer. And ACB is NEVER going to prove her wrong - even if she likely is. So, let's stop this irrelevant snoozefest. PLEASE! If you must argue about something, argue about what is REALLY relevant as to the central debate on this website - that is theism vs. non-theism, and if theism - WHICH God created?

The truth shall make you free.

[abelcainsbrother]

He Spoke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ml9LWuMwBk

[DBowling]

Eventhough they are looking at everything from an evolution view-point scientists have discovered that both humans and neanderthals mated with each other.How does your creation interpretation address this?About 100,000 years ago neanderthals and humans mated.How does OEC/Progressive creationism,Theistic evolution,Intelligent Design,Young Earth creationism,the Gap Theory,etc address these issues biblically?
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neandertha ... ously.html

A couple of points...
1. There is not currently a consensus opinion among anthropologists regarding whether or not humans and neanderthals interbred. Some scientists believe there are DNA clues that demonstrate interbreeding. Other scientists dispute those assertions. So to the best of my knowledge the verdict is still out on where the evidence really points.
2. My biggest problem with the article is their time frame for the alleged interbreeding doesn't work. The article claims that the interbreeding took place around 100,000 years ago, but the archaeological and DNA evidence that I'm aware of indicates that Humans didn't enter Europe and encounter Neanderthals until around 50,000 years ago. So the article has to assert a previously unknown migration of humans into Europe 50,000 years before we see any evidence of humans in Europe.

I personally think that interbreeding between Humans and Neanderthals is unlikely, but that is based on the scientific data and not my Origins perspective. My current perspective is that Humans and Neanderthals are separate hominid species, and therefore it is unlikely that they interbred. If the evidence of interbreeding eventually becomes more compelling than it currently is, then I might have to reevaluate my current view that Neanderthals are a separate species from Humans.

Whether or not Human/Neanderthal interbreeding is consistent with the Biblical narrative depends on how a person's interpretation of the Biblical narrative answers the following two questions...
1. Does the Bible claim that Adam is the genetic progenitor of all humans, or does the Bible claim that humans were created (Genesis 1:26-27) at some time prior to the appearance of Adam in Genesis 2?
2. Are Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Neanderthals two distinct hominid species, or are they distant relatives within a broader human species?

My .02

[Audie]

Eventhough they are looking at everything from an evolution view-point scientists have discovered that both humans and neanderthals mated with each other.How does your creation interpretation address this?About 100,000 years ago neanderthals and humans mated.How does OEC/Progressive creationism,Theistic evolution,Intelligent Design,Young Earth creationism,the Gap Theory,etc address these issues biblically?
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neandertha ... ously.html

A couple of points...
1. There is not currently a consensus opinion among anthropologists regarding whether or not humans and neanderthals interbred. Some scientists believe there are DNA clues that demonstrate interbreeding. Other scientists dispute those assertions. So to the best of my knowledge the verdict is still out on where the evidence really points.
2. My biggest problem with the article is their time frame for the alleged interbreeding doesn't work. The article claims that the interbreeding took place around 100,000 years ago, but the archaeological and DNA evidence that I'm aware of indicates that Humans didn't enter Europe and encounter Neanderthals until around 50,000 years ago. So the article has to assert a previously unknown migration of humans into Europe 50,000 years before we see any evidence of humans in Europe.

I personally think that interbreeding between Humans and Neanderthals is unlikely, but that is based on the scientific data and not my Origins perspective. My current perspective is that Humans and Neanderthals are separate hominid species, and therefore it is unlikely that they interbred. If the evidence of interbreeding eventually becomes more compelling than it currently is, then I might have to reevaluate my current view that Neanderthals are a separate species from Humans.

Whether or not Human/Neanderthal interbreeding is consistent with the Biblical narrative depends on how a person's interpretation of the Biblical narrative answers the following two questions...
1. Does the Bible claim that Adam is the genetic progenitor of all humans, or does the Bible claim that humans were created (Genesis 1:26-27) at some time prior to the appearance of Adam in Genesis 2?
2. Are Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Neanderthals two distinct hominid species, or are they distant relatives within a broader human species?

My .02

Not to go into what constitutes a species, but interbreeding among species is not so unusual. It is possible across genera too. (again, not to get into exactly what it takes to constitute a different genus)

[Audie]

Again, WHY does anyone on any side find it so important to prove or disprove evolution.

You are talking about proving a theory?

Even IF true, it's so late to the date, so as to be a meaningless argument of causes secondary to that which truly matters - least in terms of theism vs. non-theism.

Some among us are not even concerned about "theism vs non-theism" nor is it relvant to science in any case.

Audie's problem is that she knows that even if evolution occurred, that all that made it possible didn't create itself, didn't pop into existence without some organizing entity of immense power and intelligence.

Your problem, like Ab's, is that you feel free to make things up about other people.

So, she amuses herself with pointless arguments over evolutionary mechanisms that even the scientists don't agree upon. And ACB argues relentlessly against evolution - and WHY? Because if evolution is fact, it still must have had an intelligent, organizing cause and designer

.

Statements of facts not in evidence, another habit shared with ab.

And Audie can't prove it to be fact,

So you really do think that proing a theory to be a fact is even a toipc?

. And ACB is NEVER going to prove her wrong

-

Not without at least one fact.

even if she likely is.

"Wrong"? About something in particular, or just 'wrong" in general about everything?

So, let's stop this irrelevant snoozefest. PLEASE! If you must argue about something, argue about what is REALLY relevant as to the central debate on this website - that is theism vs. non-theism, and if theism - WHICH God created

So lobby for a rule, nobody can say anything about science in this forum. No science relates to your idea of what is "really" relevant.


You are hardly obligated to read it, or to use up twice as much bandwidth with your inanities.

You see to be saying that the only thing worthwhile is to discuss something to which there is no possible answer, and that far from bringing any sort of progress has simply resulted in millenia of slaughter.

Groovy.

[DBowling]

Eventhough they are looking at everything from an evolution view-point scientists have discovered that both humans and neanderthals mated with each other.How does your creation interpretation address this?About 100,000 years ago neanderthals and humans mated.How does OEC/Progressive creationism,Theistic evolution,Intelligent Design,Young Earth creationism,the Gap Theory,etc address these issues biblically?
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neandertha ... ously.html

A couple of points...
1. There is not currently a consensus opinion among anthropologists regarding whether or not humans and neanderthals interbred. Some scientists believe there are DNA clues that demonstrate interbreeding. Other scientists dispute those assertions. So to the best of my knowledge the verdict is still out on where the evidence really points.
2. My biggest problem with the article is their time frame for the alleged interbreeding doesn't work. The article claims that the interbreeding took place around 100,000 years ago, but the archaeological and DNA evidence that I'm aware of indicates that Humans didn't enter Europe and encounter Neanderthals until around 50,000 years ago. So the article has to assert a previously unknown migration of humans into Europe 50,000 years before we see any evidence of humans in Europe.

I personally think that interbreeding between Humans and Neanderthals is unlikely, but that is based on the scientific data and not my Origins perspective. My current perspective is that Humans and Neanderthals are separate hominid species, and therefore it is unlikely that they interbred. If the evidence of interbreeding eventually becomes more compelling than it currently is, then I might have to reevaluate my current view that Neanderthals are a separate species from Humans.

Whether or not Human/Neanderthal interbreeding is consistent with the Biblical narrative depends on how a person's interpretation of the Biblical narrative answers the following two questions...
1. Does the Bible claim that Adam is the genetic progenitor of all humans, or does the Bible claim that humans were created (Genesis 1:26-27) at some time prior to the appearance of Adam in Genesis 2?
2. Are Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Neanderthals two distinct hominid species, or are they distant relatives within a broader human species?

My .02

Not to go into what constitutes a species, but interbreeding among species is not so unusual. It is possible across genera too. (again, not to get into exactly what it takes to constitute a different genus)

A short clarification...

For the purpose of my comments above. I am using 'species' as a boundary for viable and fertile offspring.
If Humans and Neanderthals are able to produce viable and fertile offspring then that is an indicator that they both belong to the same human species.
If Humans and Neanderthals are different species (as I believe) then they would be incapable of viable and fertile offspring.