dduckwessel Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I'm sorry, Duckwessel. I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would help. ~modest Your post was very helpful, modest. It was really interesting to see the pictures of mans evolution. As always, I listen to validated science and it always has the final say in my mind but I believe in this case there's more to the story. There's always one more piece to the puzzle. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 All species of animals are different to some extent from other species (just as all species have similarities to varying degrees). They all 'got something' the others didn't and passed it on. Our specie is no different. Darwin explained it quite nicely, and others have elaborated on the mechanism since. I love Darwin and if you read my posts, I don't believe I disagree with him! The point of differentiation was that I'm convinced humans have something extra and there's enough people who have similar experiences to suggest that something else is going on. Don't take a shower for a week and you'll see that you are no different from our cousins at your local zoo. I have been saying all along that we are in part,'animal'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 May I say in conclusion, because it looks like this thread is done, is that I thought you guys would be excited about my discovery! My main point (first post) was that the Bible agrees with evolution in that life originated in the primordial soup (dust/ground) and evolved from there. As Genesis is only a very brief overview of billions of years, I thought I filled in the blanks quite nicely - but perhaps not! I have been attempting to introduce my ideas on Creationist/ID websites but it's a hard nut to crack as they refuse to look at evidence beyond the Bible. By using the Bible, I hope to shake things up in Bible circles. Based on the information I presented - were any of you intrigued even slightly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I have been saying all along that we are in part,'animal'! I am saying we are 100% animal. CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Modern genetics – specifically, the genetics of our mitochondria – strongly suggests that every human living today is the descendent of a single woman (“mitochondrial Eve”) who lived about 200,000 years ago. It also strongly suggests that we’re all descended from a single man (“Y-chromosomal Adam”) who lived about 75,000 years ago. Obviously, however, m-Eve and Y-Adam didn’t have children together, so we’re not all descended from “one woman and one man.”Actualy m-Eve and y-Adam did have children together - homo-sapien.You’re failing to appreciate the dates involved in this subject, dduckwessel. m-Eve is estimated, via genetic analysis, to have lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-Adam is estimated by similar genetic analysis, to have lived about 75,000 years ago. Given that humans rarely live more than 100 years, and women rarely remain fertile beyond age 50, there’s no reasonable possibility of a woman living 100,000 years, let alone having children at that age, so m-Eve and Y-Adam couldn’t possibly have met and had children together. Another case of failing to appreciate dates is your suggestion that H. sapiens descended from H. neanderthalensis. This doesn’t make sense, because despite their being extinct and us not, and Neanderthals looking somehow more ancient than us, the fossil record show H. sapiens to be older, at about 200,000 years, than H. neanderthalensis, which doesn’t appear in the record until about 130,000 years ago. A species can’t descend from a species younger than it! Evolutionary biology doesn’t describe the sudden appearance of anatomically modern humans from anatomically archaic ones, but rather the gradual process of speciation, a slow change in visible and invisible traits. So m-Eve’s parents and her children were not noticeably more or less H. sapiens than her. Y-Adam’s parents and his children were not noticeably more or less H. sapiens than him. Notice that biologists apply the term “human” to all species of in the genus homo, so H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, and all the other Homo species we know of, may discover in the fossil record. So when we speak of H. sapiens – us humans – as well as our many extinct close relative species, we need to qualify “human” with “anatomically modern”, which is unambiguous, because as of perhaps 10,000 BC, we H. sapiens appear to have become the only surviving species of the homo genus. If you’re interested, as you appear to be, dduckwessel, in mapping paleobiology to ancient writing, you may want to give thought to the coincidence that the extinction of the last non-H. sapiens humans, the appearance of not only anatomically modern, but culturally modern, humans, and the numerous mentions in old scriptures, such as, in the Torah, humans who were not descendents of Adam and Eve (eg: the people of the Land of Nod prior to Cain’s exile to and marriage into them) May I say in conclusion, because it looks like this thread is done, is that I thought you guys would be excited about my discovery! ...Based on the information I presented - were any of you intrigued even slightly?As a pretty avid reader of SF, my enthusiasm for you ideas is tempered by having read similar ideas in many well-crafted SF stories, and even the intro narration to a . In short, you’re far from the first person to have these thoughts, or even write award-winning fiction about them. I’ve a SF novel recommendation for you, dduckwessel. Have you read Snowcrash? While your ideas weren’t new or exciting to me, dduckwessel, this thread has induced me to spent many hours reviewing evolutionary biology, especially cladistics, producing a jumble of notes too complicated and disorderly to post, but wonderful fun making. Given that the discipline of cladistics has been around over 150 years, and genetic analysis informing paleobiology for 30 or so, I’m delighted by how much remains to be known about our biological origins, especially how uncertain our answers to intuitively satisfying questions like “what did the last common ancestor of these two presently living species look like? I’ve written a lot in this thread about the LCA of modern humans and modern chimpanzees, but while the certainty of this extinct species having existed is high, estimates as to when they lived vary greatly (at least 6 , to as many as 13 or more million years ago), and we have only the vaguest of guesses what these apes looked like, or how they lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I am saying we are 100% animal. CC please tell me when was the last time you saw an animal building an ornate house to live in, or painting a picture, or listening to music... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 m-Eve is estimated, via genetic analysis, to have lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-Adam is estimated by similar genetic analysis, to have lived about 75,000 years ago. Given that humans rarely live more than 100 years, and women rarely remain fertile beyond age 50, there’s no reasonable possibility of a woman living 100,000 years, let alone having children at that age, so m-Eve and Y-Adam couldn’t possibly have met and had children together. According to my studies, m-Eve was possibly older than 100,000 years and Adam ((x/y) even older than her as he was the 'first' to climb from the primodial soup (dust/ground). According to the Bible, man (he was not Adam/male until it gave birth to Eve) it seems, was 'both' sexes. I haven't put it all together but from what I can figure, early evolution would have favoured 'no sexes'. However, I have reason to suspect that man was both sexes because the woman came directly 'from' its body (bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh = flesh and bone, Gen. 2:23). Therefore , the 'sexes' were a bi-product. How could m-Eve be older than 100,000 years? It seems they were 'not' on the earth for most of the duration of their lives. Man was on the earth from the time it climbed from the primordial soup - then something happened and man 'left' the earth for who knows how long. When man returned to the earth [apparently God's idea so that a suitable mate (2:20) could be found for it.] The only suitable mate would be someone 'just like man'. So man returns to earth to give birth to the female. Man had changed quite a bit and was now something more like 'Neanderthal' because the place it had been caused 'changes' to occur to it. The changes looked like 'evolutionary adaptations' but it was not, it was something else. Neanderthal-man gave birth to Neanderthal-Eve (all 'female' genes were somehow pooled into her) and man became strictly male, Neanderthal-Adam. Upon her maturity, they produced Neanderthal (or something like it) children. Adam and his female then returned to the place where there is no time and were there for who knows how long (millions of years) before returning once more to earth, where their Neanderthal children had been very busy. So you see, man/Adam was 'very' old - possibly billions of years old. Eve was old but not as old as Adam. Evolutionary biology doesn’t describe the sudden appearance of anatomically modern humans from anatomically archaic ones, but rather the gradual process of speciation, a slow change in visible and invisible traits. So m-Eve’s parents and her children were not noticeably more or less H. sapiens than her. Y-Adam’s parents and his children were not noticeably more or less H. sapiens than him. The whole thing would certainly 'look' gradual. The bones are correct, they do not lie but the 'story' of the bones is inaccurate. Eve didn't have a mother (she was the original 'female' mould from which 'all' humans came after). Man gave birth to her - therefore, man was Eve's parent. After Eve was born, man became strictly 'male' (Adam). Notice that biologists apply the term “human” to all species of in the genus homo, so H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, and all the other Homo species we know of, may discover in the fossil record. So when we speak of H. sapiens – us humans – as well as our many extinct close relative species, we need to qualify “human” with “anatomically modern”, which is unambiguous, because as of perhaps 10,000 BC, we H. sapiens appear to have become the only surviving species of the homo genus. The whole thing has to be looked at differently when the original 'man' was the creature (both sexes) that crawled from the primodial soup into the trees, but was also Neanderthal (or pre-Neanderthal) and also Homo-erectus or sapien (or versions thereof). Perhaps I'm not getting the terminology correct but I'm saying that Adam was all 'three' states and 'we' are the product are the final Y-Adam and m-Eve. If you’re interested, as you appear to be, dduckwessel, in mapping paleobiology to ancient writing, you may want to give thought to the coincidence that the extinction of the last non-H. sapiens humans, the appearance of not only anatomically modern, but culturally modern, humans, and the numerous mentions in old scriptures, such as, in the Torah, humans who were not descendents of Adam and Eve (eg: the people of the Land of Nod prior to Cain’s exile to and marriage into them) There are the lost generations, Adam to Jared, who apparently lived on the earth, but 'not on the earth' somehow, in a sort of zone. Cain however, left that place after killing Abel and went to live in another place. I think Cain possibly mated with Neaderthals. It was Cain's descendants who were responsible for corrupting the children of Jared and Jared's children left the 'mountain' and then intermingled with Cain's descendants. In short, you’re far from the first person to have these thoughts, or even write award-winning fiction about them. Darn, I thought I was unique. So you have heard this slant that man/Adam was the entire evolutionary tree? I’ve a SF novel recommendation for you, dduckwessel. Have you read Snowcrash? I will read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 please tell me when was the last time you saw an animal building an ornate house to live in, or painting a picture, or listening to music...We see it all the time and it's always a kind of ape called homo sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 We see it all the time and it's always a kind of ape called homo sapiens. They work in packs and use tools. I've personally observed them hooting and hollering at passing females of the species (no doubt some kind of courtship display of biological fitness). Duckwessel, A mammal is a kind of animal and a human is a kind of mammal. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 We see it all the time and it's always a kind of ape called homo sapiens. So why don't the other animals do those things? Why just us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 They work in packs and use tools. I've personally observed them hooting and hollering at passing females of the species (no doubt some kind of courtship display of biological fitness). Duckwessel, A mammal is a kind of animal and a human is a kind of mammal. ~modest Yes I know a mammal is an animal, and we are mammal, as I've said all along!! <_< Yes the other animals have 'social' behaviour but you can't say it's developed in the same way as humans. Why is that? Why do the other animals only seem to go so far in social development and - stop? So what do we have that enabled us (who began the same way as they) to progress so much further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 So why don't the other animals do those things? Why just us? Chimps can do things that you can't do because they have better memory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8 The chimp is still an animal. Yes I know a mammal is an animal, and we are mammal, as I've said all along!! <_< You said people weren't animals. By the transitive property of pants on fire... Yes the other animals have 'social' behaviour but you can't say it's developed in the same way as humans. Why is that? Why do the other animals only seem to go so far in social development and - stop? Humans are better at learning and passing along culture because of our unique ability to communicate. I say "unique", but it isn't really unique. There was another animal that evolved advanced language and culture independently of humans. They were at least as smart, and maybe smarter, than we are. But, we exterminated them. The answer, then, as to why we are the only animals with such advanced culture is that we are one of only two that have thus far evolved that ability and the other was wiped out, most likely by us. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 So why don't the other animals do those things? Why just us? There is nothing that humans do that other animals do not do. It's usually on a smaller scale than humans but other animals do make music, ever hear wolves howling at the moon? Birds singing? Tools, yes other animals make tools, other animals make art, birds often make elaborate displays whose only use is to please females and intimidate other males, they use colored bits of rocks, shiny objects, flowers, it's art for that same reasons we produce art. The only real difference between humans and other animals is that we do just about everything and we take it to new levels but it's difficult to say that humans are the only animals who do these things. (there is one thing that humans do that animals do not but so far no one has said it and I will wait and see if anyone else gets it, we've thrashed it out so many times on this forum it seems redundant to mention it even though nearly everything we do that is more complex than what animals do is based on this one thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Yes the other animals have 'social' behaviour but you can't say it's developed in the same way as humans. Why is that? Why do the other animals only seem to go so far in social development and - stop?You mean ants, bees and termites only go so far in social development and - stop? So why don't the other animals do those things? Why just us?Why do only bees build those hives with all those hexagon patterns for storage? Chimps can do things that you can't do because they have better memory:That suggests photographic memory; in any case apparently it has been challenged.http://www.springerlink.com/content/h842v2702r60u481/ modest 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 That suggests photographic memory; in any case apparently it has been challenged.http://www.springerlink.com/content/h842v2702r60u481/ The original test included 8 masked numerals. Humans, with practice, have matched chimp performance with 5 numerals, but not eight. A bigger methodological problem, in my opinion, is the recognition time. I can remember an 8-digit number easily if I have enough time to think about what that number is. The test would seem to measure how fast the chimp is thinking as much as it is measuring memory. Nonetheless, my point is just as easily made by saying that dogs can hear better than humans... it doesn't make dogs non-animal. Just because humans can build a rocket doesn't mean we are non-animal. ~modest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [...](there is one thing that humans do that animals do not but so far no one has said it and I will wait and see if anyone else gets it, we've thrashed it out so many times on this forum it seems redundant to mention it even though nearly everything we do that is more complex than what animals do is based on this one thing) You're not talking about missionary position are you? There are other animals that copulate that way. A good one can be found on youtube. :unsure: CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 You said people weren't animals. By the transitive property of pants on fire... You had better go back and re-read the thread!! There was another animal that evolved advanced language and culture independently of humans. They were at least as smart, and maybe smarter, than we are. But, we exterminated them. Apparently they weren't 'that' smart or they would have exterminated us!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts