[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[brother Paul]

While the earliest Homo Sapiens are claimed to be related to the people of Omo 1 (Ethiopia) from around 195,000 years ago, Mousterian stone tool culture dates to 300,000 years, but some scientists see indicators from as early as 600,000 years – (Bischoff, James L.; Shamp, Donald D.; Aramburu, Arantza; Arsuaga, Juan Luis; Carbonell, Eudald; Bermudez de Castro, J.M. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos Hominids Date to Beyond U/Th Equilibrium (>350kyr) and Perhaps to 400–500kyr: New Radiometric Dates". Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (3): 275–80) AND Skinner, A., B. Blackwell, R. Long, M.R. Seronie-Vivien, A.-M. Tillier and J. Blickstein; New ESR dates for a new bone-bearing layer at Pradayrol, Lot, France; Paleoanthropology Society March 28, 2007

It has been shown that this variety of Homo Sapien (pre-dating Omo 1 by over 100,000 years) already had a sophisticated technology for making a specialized pitch from Birch bark that requires a limited margin of specific heat and common knowledge of using this technique in making their spears. We now KNOW they had burial rituals and made ornamentation (unheard of among apes or any of the alleged apemen).

The average cranial capacity was about 1600 cm3, and the average height for males and females was 6 to 6.6 feet tall – (Helmuth H (1998). "Body height, body mass and surface area of the Neanderthals". Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 82 (1))

It is true the DNA shows an over 99.5% match with African based Sapiens, but IMO dating is implying that if one CAME FROM the other then we may have it backwards. ("Neanderthal Genome Sequencing Yields Surprising Results And Opens A New Door To Future Studies" , Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 16 November 2006)…YET

Despite being reclassified as a human “subspecies” Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (a human imposition onto the data) we have new evidence which shows they were distinct from the African lineage (Hedges SB (December 2000). "Human evolution. A start for population genomics". Nature 408 (6813): 652–3)

The Homo Sapien variety we call Neanderthal and the Sapien variety we call Denisovans (both homo sapien equal to if not greater then AND earlier than the “out of Africa line) have unique and distinct Mirochondrial DNA lineages more likely suggesting a three source theory rather than an “out of Africa” one source theory (though this does not exclude the possibility of an earlier single source, it brings into question the former ape to man scenario held by and pushed by many EBs)

In all fairness though we have no actual evidence it is true, the oldest modern African based Sapiens, now conveniently reclassified Sapien Sapiens MAY date back earlier than 200,000 years (absence of evidence not being evidence of absence) but we can only SPECUALTE that it is true at this time.

IMO the out of Africa theory has been completely discredited by the fossil record and recent genetic research, others are coming around to this same position. (“Re-examining the “out of Africa” theory and the Origin of Europoids in Light of DNA Genealogy” Advances in Anthropology, 2_ ,…found at

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

I love this because on pages 84-85 the research team concludes with a view I have long believed and shared and that is “We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete, and not actually data-driven.”

So why is this crumbling hypothesis still being promoted by academia as “the fact” we should all accept and believe? IMO? Because it fits the propaganda machine’s hypothesis! This group controlling the pedagoguery will continue (as James discovered and Goebbels applied) to hammer the unsupported hypothesis based rhetoric into the minds of school children. Thanks be to God that there are actual objective scientists that will step outside the pre-programmed box and just look at the data…

Comments? Thoughts?

 

[Knotical]

Why is it that those who profess that they are Christians insist on taking God out of the equation when it comes to how life began? God created the first man and woman roughly 10,000 years ago. This is based on the extrapolation of events recorded in the Bible, which are literal accounts (not allegorical) and should be viewed above any sort of alternate explanation put forth by men.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Why is it that those who profess that are Christians insist on taking God out of the equation when it comes to how life began? God created the first man and woman roughly 10,000 years ago. This is based on the extrapolation of events recorded in the Bible, which are literal accounts (not allegorical) and should be viewed above any sort of alternate explanation put forth by men.

The enemy will do anything to discredit God.
Keep telling them(people) a lie and eventually they will believe it.

 

[brother Paul]

I agree with both of you except when it comes to dating the early events of Genesis. Dating in the books of the generations of Adam and Noah cannot be accurately discerned. It was common in those days to sometimes represent entire kingdoms by the name of the King (which could last a long time after he was dead) and sometimes blot out the remembrance of entire persons and events.

As far as it being the work of the devil to create these places, people, and events, just to confuse the faithful, I think modern fundamentalism gives the devil far too much credit. He/they have no power to create anything.

Though this three source idea may extend the time frame for more, the fact that these three groups
have a more common male lineage (possibly the sons of our Noah) and three distinct female lineages (their wives)
only begs the question of when these events occurred....we already know the dating according to
Bishop Ussher is off by generations.

 

[brother Paul]

Mark Buchanan of New Scientist (4/9/2011) revealed that Neanderthal-derived DNA, accounts for an estimated 1–4% of the Eurasian genome, but it is significantly absent or uncommon in the genome of most Sub-Saharan African people.

While4% to 6% of the genome in Meleasians derives from Denisovans, no Eurasians or Africans display contributions of the Denisovan genes (Reich, D.; Green, R.E.; Kircher, M.; Krause, J.; Patterson, N.; Durand, E.Y.; et al. (2010). "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia". Nature 468 (7327): 1053–1060).

Alla Katsnelson, “New Hominin found via mtDNA”, The Scientist (24 March 2010) is another testimony of the unique non-Eurasian and non-African matrilineal source. We have however found a 400,000 year old Neanderthal femur which is closer to the Denisovan mtDNA than to other studied Neanderthal mtDNA (Ewan Callaway, “Hominin DNA baffles experts” see Nature, 504: 16–17, 5 December 2013),

I don’t know but it I think we need to reconsider the status quo. It appears we have been around a lot longer than 200,000 years.

 

[Malachi]

Dating in the books of the generations of Adam and Noah cannot be accurately discerned.

That's what the naysayers would have you believe. Perish the thought. Divine inspiration guarantees that the genealogies are accurate and need to be studied carefully (which has already been done). If we cannot trust this portion of Scripture, why should we trust any other portion? That's the real issue.

 

[Malachi]

As far as it being the work of the devil to create these places, people, and events, just to confuse the faithful, I think modern fundamentalism gives the devil far too much credit. He/they have no power to create anything.

You underestimate the power of Satanic deception. It is not a matter of "creating" anything or giving "credit" to the Devil, but a matter of Satan twisting the truth with great subtlety. No wonder the unbelieving world follows the lies of the Devil, whether in so-called "science" or any other field.

 

[Malachi]

Bishop Ussher is off by generations.

Not really. By a few decades, and primarily because Ptolemy was off in his calculations.

 

[brother Paul]

I do believe the scriptures. I have no doubt Moses was inspired by God to use these early accounts as opposed to others available in his time but I see them as different from being directly transitioned into his brain word for word from God. Nothing indicated this was done (like when the scriptures tel us "And the Lord said" or "And the LORD told Jeremiah to write down these words into a scroll" or the "Word of the Lord came and said"). So I 100% trust the Scriptures (and have followed many of the genealogies down through the pages of scripture)...I trust when simile, hyperbole, metaphor, or even apocalyptic or poetic language is used, etc., these are used as was the Lord's intent. These are not to be taken literally.

It is like the issue of prophecy. Many modern fundamentalists interpret them all as applying to ALL the children of Israel and some to the Church (like the error of using Deuteronomy 28 for the Church....it is specific to the Mosaic Covenant) but a deeper look reveals some are ONLY for the Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) some ONLY for the Kingdom of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) and others "future"....same with Proverbs some are not to be taken as literally true but as general principles (which they are...like a soft answer turning away wrath....obviously does not always work but that does not make God a liar does it? No! Because it is a sound general principle we should all live by)....

 

[brother Paul]

Now having said what I did above...this IS Science AND Christianity not Science OR Christianity. How do the two mix? Did God intend for us to find these things and wonder? Just as the Bible helps us see how we should understand some things in Science, science sometimes helps us see how we should understand some things in the Bible....

I am repulsed when "scientists" use science to try and disprove "God" and what God has revealed. One deals with who and why questions and the other with what and how questions and rarely speak the same language...this is the "scientist's" problem,,,the problem with us is that we each think our theological approach and hermeneutic (mostly what we have been taught) is correct...so like science, Christianity develops different opinions which we impose onto the words or stories to make them appear to say what we believe. For example, I believe in the flood....was it 4004 B.C.? Sorry...I do not believe that! Was the entire pangea-like world at the time flooded? I believe that! Was the world as WE know it (with people already on divided continents) what or how we should imagine it? Absolutely not (IMHO), and nothing in the Bible supports such a notion (but people are entitled to their opinion).

 

[Knotical]

When it comes to the relationship between Science and Christianity you must always test any discovery made using the scientific method against what the bible teaches. If it appears to be in contradiction then you must assume that the bible is right and your finding are wrong.

 

[Sinthesis]

Well meaning Christians often disagree on what the bible teaches, which is why various scientific discoveries and concepts can be unacceptable to some Christians while at the same time unthreatening to other Christians.

 

[brother Paul]

So do either of you have an opinion on what the OP was about? We know inevitably Adam and Eve are the original pair humans and they were created by God. Since science does not speak in these terms where do the African roots, Neanderthal roots and Devisovan roots fit in? They have three different matrilineal sources but similar male sources (genetically speaking)...we now know these were all humans of one branch or another...(no troglydites or apemen)

 

[Knotical]

I dismiss anything in regard to evolution, including anything having to do with what is described as neanderthals. There were just humans from Adam all they way down to us. There is/was nothing else.

 

[brother Paul]

I dismiss anything in regard to evolution, including anything having to do with what is described as neanderthals. There were just humans from Adam all they way down to us. There is/was nothing else.

Great! Thanks....

 

[Jacks Bratt]

When it comes to the relationship between Science and Christianity you must always test any discovery made using the scientific method against what the bible teaches. If it appears to be in contradiction then you must assume that the bible is right and your finding are wrong.

A good example of science, facts and attitude can affect what is considered as truth, watch "Patterns of Evidence, Exodus". This guy, reluctantly, goes in search of the Biblical Exodus. He is a believer but afraid that he will not find anything to confirm the scriptures. This is exactly what happens. Nothing he finds would indicate the biblical story. That is, until he meets a few people, checks some data and shifts the time period by a couple of hundred years, researches a different "Ramses" of Egypt and then everything falls into place.

The real shocker is when he discusses his findings with an accredited archeologist of Egypt. The guy listens to his data and states that even if it is true, you will not change anything on how he presents it to anyone. In other words, he will perpetuate a lie instead of disrupting any beliefs of anyone or changing what is in the books today. History could all be a lie if this is the attitude of the people who write the books and present the historical stories.

 

[Barbarian]

Why is it that those who profess that they are Christians insist on taking God out of the equation when it comes to how life began?

Probably because they aren't Darwinians:

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[ix]
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

God created the first man and woman roughly 10,000 years ago.

That modern doctrine is neither scriptural nor scientific.

This is based on the extrapolation of events recorded in the Bible,

Ah, extrapolation:
Extrapolation is a useful technique, but saddled with considerable inherent uncertainty.
http://secondversion.blogspot.com/2006/11/dangers-of-extrapolation.html

Reducing God's word to "uncertainty" seems like an unwise thing to do.

which are literal accounts (not allegorical)

That is also a modern revision, put forth by men, and not a safe assumption to make.

 

[Barbarian]

We now KNOW they had burial rituals and made ornamentation (unheard of among apes or any of the alleged apemen).

We don't know for a fact that Neandertals had burial rituals, and we find little or no art by them ,so that's hardly a measure of humanity.

Despite being reclassified as a human “subspecies” Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (a human imposition onto the data) we have new evidence which shows they were distinct from the African lineage (Hedges SB (December 2000). "Human evolution. A start for population genomics". Nature 408 (6813): 652–3)

If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why this isn't inconsistent.

Was the entire pangea-like world at the time flooded? I believe that!

There is neither scriptural nor scientific evidence for that.

 

[brother Paul]

We now KNOW they had burial rituals and made ornamentation (unheard of among apes or any of the alleged apemen). We don't know for a fact that Neandertals had burial rituals, and we find little or no art by them ,so that's hardly a measure of humanity.

Well we have found 2 examples of burial positioning. One of a young girl and another of a mother and child. Each case was arranged in a fetal position and we have found a number of cases of shells with holes having been bored in the same place (indicative of being made with an intentional purpose….maybe as jewelry) and samples of shells that contained traces of paint (apes would never do these things, not make spears, nor use the same pitch formula and technique, nor mate with humans and be able to produce fertile offspring).

Despite being reclassified as a human “subspecies” Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (a human imposition onto the data) we have new evidence which shows they were distinct from the African lineage (Hedges SB (December 2000). "Human evolution. A start for population genomics". Nature 408 (6813): 652–3) If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why this isn't inconsistent.

How so? Their mitochondrial DNA are from different unrelated sources.

Was the entire pangea-like world at the time flooded? I believe that! There is neither scriptural nor scientific evidence for that.

This comment was in response to a Biblically related post not related to the OP, so obviously there is no “scientific evidence” but I am curious…IF there was some sort of flood, how was it? Only local? How then do all continents have so many similarities in their telling of the story (which for each is historical)? Either they all experienced it separately on different continents OR at the time after our Noah him, his wife, and their sons and their wives sourced all these legends.

So I qualified this with ”I Believe” so feel free to express your equally plausible belief about the flood story.

 

[Knotical]

Probably because they aren't Darwinians:

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[ix]
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species



That modern doctrine is neither scriptural nor scientific.



Ah, extrapolation:
Extrapolation is a useful technique, but saddled with considerable inherent uncertainty.
http://secondversion.blogspot.com/2006/11/dangers-of-extrapolation.html

Reducing God's word to "uncertainty" seems like an unwise thing to do.



That is also a modern revision, put forth by men, and not a safe assumption to make.

These merely sound like your opinions, and not based on fact. Biblical or otherwise.

As I have stated, and has been supported by others, evolution is merely a theory which attempts to take God out of the equation of how life began in this universe. And those who try to marry up evolution into the Creation account are trying to take something unbiblical and making it biblical, which is very dangerous and could be considered unpardonable.