[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[Barbarian]

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

As noted before, none of those modern beliefs are actually supported in the Bible.

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.

Doubly wrong. Wrong once, because Darwin, in The Origin of Species, made it clear that he attributed the origin of life to God. Wrong again, because no scientific theory can deny anything at all about the supernatural. Darwin alluded to this fact:
Many who are angrily anti-Darwin have not read the Origin or examined Darwin's personal life. At Cambridge University he studied to be a minister. However, he felt that science should be objective in nature, and was careful to keep any reference to God or a creator out of his work, particularly in his two major works On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. For example, he states in the Origin, "They [creationists] believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion)"
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/what_darwin_said_about_god.html

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.

As I pointed out, and as Darwin pointed out, science cannot do that. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Making evolution part of Genesis would be as foolish as making reaction kinetics part of Genesis. Science is certainly consistent with the Bible (although it is not consistent with some modern alterations of the Bible) and it could not be otherwise.

 

[turnorburn]

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.

Far too much credit you say? Gods word has this to say about him..

II Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Unlike us he's at it 24/7

 

[brother Paul]

I agree regarding the gospel of Christ 100%

 

[Barbarian]

But, as Christians understand, nothing in scripture is contrary to anything in biology.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

But, as Christians understand, nothing in scripture is contrary to anything in biology.

Correct, but anything in biology or science that contradicts the scriptures, is in error.

 

[Barbarian]

Correct, but anything in biology or science that contradicts the scriptures, is in error.

There's a huge difference between contradicting scripture and contradicting some people's interpretation of scripture.

 

[brother Paul]

Now consider the beautifully crafted chlorite bracelet also found in the Denisova cave....expertly crafted using a hand made boring tool and polished...over 40,000 years old and a lovely ring carved out of solid marble...

Tim White (who I admire by the way and followed for years), and hosts of others, still state "homo sapiens" first migrated out of Africa around 40,000 years ago ("Pleistocene Homo Sapiens from MIddle Awash, Ethiopia" Nature, 423 (6491)) but now we see the gene pool interaction between these three varieties of human people (not "different species") so very far from there and they already have very sophisticated intelligence and skill....surely you must admit this throws a monkey wrench into the mix...

I would not say the primary first humans did not come from the area we would now call Africa...but the time thing is way off in light of all these forthcoming evidences.

Ernst Mayr and others describe a species, as a group or classification in which there is gene flow between individuals "within" A species (not among species, plural)...not between species...according to all the definitions there seems to be one thing in common and that is that "a species" (as opposed to differing species) consists of individuals capable of genetic exchange and interbreeding producing fertile offspring...the so called sapien sapiens, the neanderthals, and the devisovans, are by definition all one species (fully functional human beings...though demonstrating anatomical variation)....They are not "different species" that "humans" mated with (thats absurd hypothesis based conclusionism)

 

[Barbarian]

They are all subspecies, quite different than anatomically modern humans. But much more closely related to us than chimps are.

That's been known for some time, now.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

They are all subspecies, quite different than anatomically modern humans. But much more closely related to us than chimps are.

That's been known for some time, now.

How are they different? What was their diet? How tall were they? How long did they live? Could they mate with humans of today? How intelligent were they?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How are they different? What was their diet? How tall were they? How long did they live? Could they mate with humans of today? How intelligent were they?

He can't answer that because they never existed.

 

[Barbarian]

How are they different?

Neandertals were shorter, more muscular, with larger faces and skulls, with the braincase longer and lower than in anatomically modern humans. (larger brains were almost certainly due to much greater muscle mass, which requires brain space to function)

They had the necessary anatomy of the throat to speak and likely did. They had a slightly different structure of the shoulder joint, which likely made throwing more difficult than it is for us, which perhaps explains why we don't find projectile weapons made by them.

One significant difference is the absence of a chin. They retained the "simian shelf", seen in other hominins.
All of the fossil hominids, including Neanderthal have a simian shelf, though it may be reduced in size. Fully modern humans have no simian shelf.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/defaultx.html

They were culturally extremely conservative; their tool kit remained constant for an incredibly long time, compared to the variation found in anatomically modern humans. However, we do see that in at least one case, they adopted many tools from other human groups, which suggests an intelligence on par with our own.

Likewise, the presence of Neandertal genes in modern humans of European and Asian ancestry, suggests that they were rather like us in many respects. Certainly their genes are close enough to ours to be considered a subspecies of human along with us and Denisovans.

What was their diet?

At least those in northern Europe were more carnivorous than we, for the obvious reason; lack of plant material for much of the year. In other places, like Mt. Carmel, they used a lot of plant material.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/486.full

Probably pretty much like us.

How tall were they?

About 5'5", based on the large number of skeletons we've located.

How long did they live?

About as long as we would under the same conditions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11obneanderthal.html?_r=0

Could they mate with humans of today?

We don't know about today, but given that many Europeans and Asians have Neandertal genes, they clearly could mate with anatomically modern humans of their time.

How intelligent were they?

They were the first humans to figure out how to survive and thrive in Ice Age conditions in Northern Europe. So probably pretty bright.

 

[brother Paul]

They are all subspecies, quite different than anatomically moderrn humans. But much more closely related to us than chimps are.

That's been known for some time, now.

Quite a bit of anatomical variety today as well....still not chimplike...some even with pronounced orbital ridging

 

[brother Paul]

They had the necessary anatomy of the throat to speak and likely did. They had a slightly different structure of the shoulder joint, which likely made throwing more difficult than it is for us, which perhaps explains why we don't find projectile weapons made by them.

Is hard not to imagine they also threw their well made spears....that must be a remnent of the status quo conjecture.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
They had the necessary anatomy of the throat to speak and likely did. They had a slightly different structure of the shoulder joint, which likely made throwing more difficult than it is for us, which perhaps explains why we don't find projectile weapons made by them.

Is hard not to imagine they also threw their well made spears....that must be a remnent of the status quo conjecture.

It seems that they didn't throw spears, either. The shoulder thing, you know.

A trio of new studies on prehistoric weapons suggests Neanderthals made sophisticated weapons and tools — possibly including the first sticky adhesive — but they lacked the projectile weapons possessed by early humans.


The missing technology, along with climate change and competition with arrow-shooting humans, may have contributed to the Neanderthals' eventual extinction.


"While we are not suggesting that modern humans were directing projectile weapons against Neanderthals, it is certainly possible that at times they did so," Steven Churchill, co-author of one of the papers, told Discovery News.


Churchill, an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University, and colleague Jill Rhodes compared Neanderthal fossils with those of prehistoric and modern humans, focusing on the shoulder and elbow.


"When engaged in overhead throwing activity, such as throwing a baseball, or a spear, this increases the movement arm of the muscles and gives greater strength and velocity to the throw," said Rhodes, a visiting assistant professor of anthropology at Bryn Mawr College.


She explained to Discovery News that modern athletes, like baseball pitchers and handball players, often show a characteristic backward displacement at the shoulder joint. Usually just one joint shows this, since most people have a preferred throwing arm.


The anthropologists found this telltale skeletal characteristic in the early modern European fossils, but not in the Neanderthals. The findings are published in the current issue of the Journal of Human Evolution.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28663444/...nce/t/neanderthals-lacked-projectile-weapons/

Turns out that Neandertals typically had a lot of injuries similar to those of rodeo cowboys, resulting from close contact with large animals. So lack of projectile weapons (spears are often not thrown, but thrusted), anatomical evidence, and patterns of healed injuries, suggest that they didn't toss weapons very often, if at all.

 

[brother Paul]

I still cannot imagine most did not also throw their spears as well as thrust....

Also, I looked at all the available Neanderthal fossil mandibles and only saw one with a possible (yet small) simian shelf? Do you have some other examples of this? Most look well within the range of humans

 

[AGustOfWind]

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.

I've got to disagree.

You see, God is not bound by time or space, therefore these "6 days" could've been far longer than six literal days. Also, there is nowhere that implies it should ALL be taken literally.

I'd also like to say that the Hebrew word "Father" just meant direct male ancestor, and not necessarily a dad. Therefore, you may do with that what you will, but, that could imply that when referring to people as a "father" in the bible, it actually meant direct male descendant, which means the bible could've been a much longer stretched amount of time.


There's also a lot of scientific evidence pointing to an older earth, and little, if any scientific evidence pointing towards a young earth.

There is atleast a bit of Actual biblical evidence pointing towards an old earth, while it is neutral on the new earth subject.

 

[Barbarian]

I still cannot imagine most did not also throw their spears as well as thrust....

For reasons mentioned above, it appears that they did not throw spears, but rather thrust them. Cro-Magnons, who did use projectile weapons, did not have the patterns of healed injuries we see in Neandertals.

Also, I looked at all the available Neanderthal fossil mandibles and only saw one with a possible (yet small) simian shelf? Do you have some other examples of this?

Most look well within the range of humans

See above. Anatomically modern humans have a chin jutting out, which reinforces the jaw like a flying buttress. Other hominins, including Neandertals, have a shelf of bone within the jaw.

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Neandertals were shorter, more muscular, with larger faces and skulls, with the braincase longer and lower than in anatomically modern humans. (larger brains were almost certainly due to much greater muscle mass, which requires brain space to function)

They had the necessary anatomy of the throat to speak and likely did. They had a slightly different structure of the shoulder joint, which likely made throwing more difficult than it is for us, which perhaps explains why we don't find projectile weapons made by them.

One significant difference is the absence of a chin. They retained the "simian shelf", seen in other hominins.
All of the fossil hominids, including Neanderthal have a simian shelf, though it may be reduced in size. Fully modern humans have no simian shelf.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/defaultx.html

They were culturally extremely conservative; their tool kit remained constant for an incredibly long time, compared to the variation found in anatomically modern humans. However, we do see that in at least one case, they adopted many tools from other human groups, which suggests an intelligence on par with our own.

Likewise, the presence of Neandertal genes in modern humans of European and Asian ancestry, suggests that they were rather like us in many respects. Certainly their genes are close enough to ours to be considered a subspecies of human along with us and Denisovans.



At least those in northern Europe were more carnivorous than we, for the obvious reason; lack of plant material for much of the year. In other places, like Mt. Carmel, they used a lot of plant material.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/486.full

Probably pretty much like us.



About 5'5", based on the large number of skeletons we've located.



About as long as we would under the same conditions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11obneanderthal.html?_r=0



We don't know about today, but given that many Europeans and Asians have Neandertal genes, they clearly could mate with anatomically modern humans of their time.



They were the first humans to figure out how to survive and thrive in Ice Age conditions in Northern Europe. So probably pretty bright.

So, basically, shorter than us with no chin and a bit different shoulder.

How, if you only have their bones, do you know they had the correct configuration of the larynx and throat to communicate. You can tell this from what?

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I've got to disagree.

You see, God is not bound by time or space, therefore these "6 days" could've been far longer than six literal days. Also, there is nowhere that implies it should ALL be taken literally.

I'd also like to say that the Hebrew word "Father" just meant direct male ancestor, and not necessarily a dad. Therefore, you may do with that what you will, but, that could imply that when referring to people as a "father" in the bible, it actually meant direct male descendant, which means the bible could've been a much longer stretched amount of time.


There's also a lot of scientific evidence pointing to an older earth, and little, if any scientific evidence pointing towards a young earth.

There is atleast a bit of Actual biblical evidence pointing towards an old earth, while it is neutral on the new earth subject.

Soon as you say "Could've" you lose me. The Bible is a solid and confident source. There are areas that are allegorical but Genesis is written as direct history with absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Barbarian]

So, basically, shorter than us with no chin and a bit different shoulder.

And vastly more powerful. Likely didn't have the myostatin gene that we have. Brain larger (almost certainly from greater muscle mass) but based on skull impressions, somewhat different in structure.

How, if you only have their bones, do you know they had the correct configuration of the larynx and throat to communicate. You can tell this from what?

They had a cricoid structure like we do. That is what permits speech in a human sense. But a bit different than ours. Learn about it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=S64bAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=neandertal+chrichoid&source=bl&ots=FrK2TmRbku&sig=ULSEgv0w3Cva5RyILbDSxn9tarY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL8oOmksDLAhWLNSYKHa2HC5UQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=neandertal chrichoid&f=false

From fossil information, it appears that speech became more important as we go from archaic H. sapiens to more modern populations like Neandertals, Denisovans, and anatomically modern humans.