[_ Old Earth _] Missing links...

[CaliforniaAlbanach]

...has one been found yet?

 

[The Unbeliever]

I have found missing hyperlinks. Does that help?

 

[CaliforniaAlbanach]

I just found some sausage links in my fridge, sadly they hadn't evolved!

 

[AirDancer]

Located the cuff links that had gone on walkabout .......... yippee!

 

[Barbarian]

Missing links...

...has one been found yet?

Let's find out. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one.

 

[cupid dave]

Let's find out. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one.

How about these hybrids:

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

 

[The Unbeliever]

Are the red and green names part of the original chart?

 

[Barbarian]

Two major groups. Still waiting...

 

[cupid dave]

Are the red and green names part of the original chart?

LOL

no...

The red are from the Genesis genealogy through the line of Cain, while the Green names come from the 12 members of the Genesis genealogy throught Seth.

The point being that they meet in a hybrization which produced off spring that led to us, Modern Homo sapiens.

 

[cupid dave]

Two major groups. Still waiting...

What's wrong with my proposal of Early Homo erectus (African Erectus or Egaster) and Modern Homo erectus?

"Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds"....





NOTE:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Homo ergaster
Temporal range: Pleistocene, 1.8–1.3 Ma

PreЄ​

Є
O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg
N​

↓



Skull KNM-ER 3733 discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 (Kenya)Scientific classificationKingdom:AnimaliaPhylum:ChordataClass:MammaliaOrder:PrimatesFamily:HominidaeGenus:HomoSpecies:H. ergasterBinomial name†Homo ergaster

Homo ergaster (also "African Homo erectus"[1]) is an extinct Homo that lived in eastern and southern Africa during the early Pleistocene, between 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago.[2]
... it is now widely accepted to be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens, and Homo neanderthalensis and Asian Homo erectus.[3]
It is one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, possibly ancestral to, or sharing a common ancestor with, Homo erectus.[4]

Some paleoanthropologists consider H. ergaster to be simply the African variety of H. erectus; this leads to the use of the term "Homo erectus sensu stricto" for the Asian H. Erectus, and "Homo erectus sensu lato" for the larger species comprising both the early African populations (H. ergaster) populations.[5]

 

[Free]

How about these hybrids:

Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

To say that is stretching what the Bible says would be an understatement of monumental proportions, or "epic" proportions in keeping with today's vernacular. There are two errors which we must keep from when interpreting the Bible--making it say more than it does and making it say less. This is a case of trying to make the Scriptures say much more than they do by reading into the text ideas which simply are not there.

 

[Asyncritus]

Two major groups. Still waiting...

Arthropods and annelids. Or bats and shrews. Your choice. Have fun.

 

[Milk-Drops]

...has one been found yet?

Missing link doesn't really mean much unless you are wanting to know where something in a genetic family sit in phylogeny and ask what ancestral species shared the same genetic markers. For instance if you wanted to know what is the oldest known species that lists cat and dog breeds you could research back to the genetic level that lead up to the splitting of Caniforms and Felaforms.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Or bats and shrews.

Are you wanting a direct ancestor to both or just what links, considering that there are several different lines of bat ancestry and the line that dates shrews predates the emergence of Micro and Macro Bat lines.

 

[Knotical]

I thought I found the missing link once, turns out it was just my brother.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Two major groups. Still waiting...

Arthropods and annelids.

Opabinia. Soft-bodied and segmented like an annelid, but with eyes like an arthropod, and the first evidence of the primitive biramous gill/leg structure which is characteristic of the ecdysozoa, such as arthropods, tartigrades, and onychophorans.

Or bats and shrews.

Evidence shows bats didn't evolve from shrews.

Your choice. Have fun.

Fun, but too easy. Got anything harder?

 

[cupid dave]

To say that is stretching what the Bible says would be an understatement of monumental proportions, or "epic" proportions in keeping with today's vernacular. There are two errors which we must keep from when interpreting the Bible--making it say more than it does and making it say less. This is a case of trying to make the Scriptures say much more than they do by reading into the text ideas which simply are not there.

Well of course when any of the churches explain their "book report" on the Bible and set down their catecisms and doctrines they are also "making the Bible say more than it does" as is especially noted by the other denominations which disagree with them.

What I point out to the contrary, here, is that my interpretation of Gen 6:2-4 naturally follows, since from the start I have contended that the Genealogy that lists 22 ancient, and much different types of human ancestors, is really a list of 22 species, now extinct since the days of Noah, when they all died out.


So this example of a actual hybridization found in Paleontology and Genesis supports me so far.

 

[cupid dave]

Missing link doesn't really mean much unless you are wanting to know where something in a genetic family sit in phylogeny and ask what ancestral species shared the same genetic markers. For instance if you wanted to know what is the oldest known species that lists cat and dog breeds you could research back to the genetic level that lead up to the splitting of Caniforms and Felaforms.

And for humans, that would be seven million years ago when the first Ape-man appeared with only 23 chromosomes due to a mutation that had fused them together out of the naorml 24 Ape Chromosomes, right?

 

[Free]

Well of course when any of the churches explain their "book report" on the Bible and set down their catecisms and doctrines they are also "making the Bible say more than it does" as is especially noted by the other denominations which disagree with them.

It is one thing to have disagreement on issues where the Bible isn't clear or seemingly contradictory. It is quite another to make the Bible say something clearly does not.

What I point out to the contrary, here, is that my interpretation of Gen 6:2-4 naturally follows, since from the start I have contended that the Genealogy that lists 22 ancient, and much different types of human ancestors, is really a list of 22 species, now extinct since the days of Noah, when they all died out.


So this example of a actual hybridization found in Paleontology and Genesis supports me so far.

You are making Genesis fit what you want. You are eisegeting the text.

 

[cupid dave]

It is one thing to have disagreement on issues where the Bible isn't clear or seemingly contradictory. It is quite another to make the Bible say something clearly does not.


You are making Genesis fit what you want. You are eisegeting the text.

What I believe I am doing is viewing Genesis as a science literate educated person who believes from the start that it makes rational sense and has a message which intelligent people could easily understand if expressed in the venacular of today's speech, once the archaic veneer of King James language and the doctored, psychologically set inferences by a church stuck in the Middle Ages
.

By such an approach, I apply the traditional exegesis that requires that every interpretation I make be consistent with whatever else the Bible reports to us,( like Gen 6:2-4, above, MUST complement and not contradict what I inferred from the 22 names in the ascent of man in Gen 4.

Our disagree is one thing which is so big, then, that you will never feel comfortable about the connection of actual facts with each individual verse, one by one, which shows Theistic Evolution is inherent in a properly read bible.

What you need do to demonstrate your charge against me is find one place where what the Bible says different from what I have explained.
That would show that this can not be so.
That IS what we call Exegesis and Sola Scriptue analysis.