• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] More Garbage From Scientists

Lewis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
621
Humans, Neanderthals related to yet another group

From a finger bone, scientists have reconstructed the genetic world of an entire population of extinct human relatives called Denisovans. But questions still abound about who exactly they were.
They weren’t quite like modern humans or Neanderthals, but some other group entirely. Everything we know about the Denisovans is based on a finger bone and two teeth.


Those small remnants, found in a cave in southern Siberia, are enough to figure out a few important things about these ancient people - including that some people today share genes with them.
For the first time, scientists have sequenced the Denisovan genome, with a quality that is about as high as the genome of a person alive today. That means scientists can learn about as much genetically about a person who lived tens of thousands of years ago as they could about a living person. The findings, published this week in the journal Science, deliver a wealth of insight about ancient people who roamed the Earth tens of thousands of years ago.


By comparing the genetics of modern humans with relatives in the evolutionary tree, it appears there are more than 100,000 genetic mutations that most people alive today share, but which our closest relatives in the evolutionary line did not have, said Svante Paabo, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology who led the research team.
Some of these genetic changes that are unique to humans have to do with brain function and brain development, Paabo noted.


“This is essentially a ‘genetic recipe’ †for being a modern human, Paabo said in an e-mail. “Scientists can now start working on understanding how we differed from Denisovans and Neandertals.â€
Little is known about the Denisovans. Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is not present today anywhere apart from islands in the Pacific. About 3% to 5% of the DNA of people from Melanesia (islands in the southwest Pacific Ocean), Australia and New Guinea as well as aboriginal people from the Philippines is from the Denisovans.


It’s only people in those places who have Denisovan DNA, Paabo said, which means the Denisovans must have been in Southeast Asia at one time.
By contrast, everyone who lives outside Africa today probably has some Neanderthal DNA in them, Paabo said in a news briefing Wednesday.
Paabo was reluctant to say Denisovans and Neanderthals were separate “species†but rather called them extinct “groups.â€


Scientists aren’t sure how old the finger bone used for the DNA sequence really is. Archaeologists date it to 30,000 to 50,000 years old, but based on genetics alone, the biologists who conducted this study believe it could be 80,000 years old. It appears to have belonged to a juvenile female. She may have had dark skin, brown hair and brown eyes, based on genetic associations.


The genome analysis suggests that our ancestors and the Denisovans’ ancestors must have split from each other as far back as 700,000 years ago, although there’s uncertainty around that number. But it appears the Denisovans mixed with (and mated with) indigenous people in Papua New Guinea and Australia, Paabo said.


“They probably became extinct about the same time as Neandertals when modern humans spread around the world,†Paabo said.
By sequencing single strands of ancient DNA, the researchers confirmed that interbreeding with humans must have occurred, and that Denisovans are related to Neanderthals, said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum London, who was not involved in the study.


The study also suggests that, on the whole, Europeans have less Neanderthal DNA than eastern populations. Even though Neanderthals mostly lived in Europe, people in eastern parts of Eurasia and Native Americans have more Neanderthal material than modern-day Europeans, said study co-author David Reich of Harvard University.


It could be that there were two separate gene flows into modern humans, or that there was a separate group of people who came from Africa into Europe but not Asia, said John Stewart of Bournemouth University, who was not involved in the study.


It appears the Denisovans had a low level of genetic diversity, which is consistent with Stewart and Stringer’s previous findings. Although scientists had only one finger bone to work with, a single person’s DNA contains signatures of a multitude of generations of ancestors.


This lack of diversity may also mean that Siberia wasn’t a core habitat for the Denisovans; perhaps they only went there during warm periods in small numbers but usually lived farther south.
Paabo’s study suggests the population may have begun small but quickly burgeoned, so genetic diversity didn’t have much time to increase. More research is needed to see if the Neanderthal population had a similar trajectory, the study found; if so, one single group of ancient creatures leaving Africa could have evolved into both Denisovans and Neanderthals.


Many questions remain unanswered, Stringer noted: What did Denisovans look like? Does the Denisovan DNA present in some humans today serve any function - and what about genetics from Neanderthals? Did Neanderthals and Denisovans mate with each other, too?


It’s likely that Denisovans and Neanderthals did interbeed, Stringer said, since they both lived in Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years, and there’s Neanderthal DNA in a fossil foot bone discovered in the same Denisovan cave.
“Recognition of such interbreeding will inevitably complicate the untangling of the relationships between these ancient groups of humans, and their contributions to people today,†Stringer said.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...thals-related-to-yet-another-group/?hpt=hp_t3
 
Humans, Neanderthals related to yet another group

From a finger bone, scientists have reconstructed the genetic world of an entire population of extinct human relatives called Denisovans. But questions still abound about who exactly they were.
They weren’t quite like modern humans or Neanderthals, but some other group entirely. Everything we know about the Denisovans is based on a finger bone and two teeth.


Those small remnants, found in a cave in southern Siberia, are enough to figure out a few important things about these ancient people - including that some people today share genes with them.
For the first time, scientists have sequenced the Denisovan genome, with a quality that is about as high as the genome of a person alive today. That means scientists can learn about as much genetically about a person who lived tens of thousands of years ago as they could about a living person. The findings, published this week in the journal Science, deliver a wealth of insight about ancient people who roamed the Earth tens of thousands of years ago.


By comparing the genetics of modern humans with relatives in the evolutionary tree, it appears there are more than 100,000 genetic mutations that most people alive today share, but which our closest relatives in the evolutionary line did not have, said Svante Paabo, a biologist at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology who led the research team.
Some of these genetic changes that are unique to humans have to do with brain function and brain development, Paabo noted.


“This is essentially a ‘genetic recipe’ ” for being a modern human, Paabo said in an e-mail. “Scientists can now start working on understanding how we differed from Denisovans and Neandertals.”
Little is known about the Denisovans. Although some of their remains were found in southern Siberia, their genetic signature is not present today anywhere apart from islands in the Pacific. About 3% to 5% of the DNA of people from Melanesia (islands in the southwest Pacific Ocean), Australia and New Guinea as well as aboriginal people from the Philippines is from the Denisovans.


It’s only people in those places who have Denisovan DNA, Paabo said, which means the Denisovans must have been in Southeast Asia at one time.
By contrast, everyone who lives outside Africa today probably has some Neanderthal DNA in them, Paabo said in a news briefing Wednesday.
Paabo was reluctant to say Denisovans and Neanderthals were separate “species” but rather called them extinct “groups.”


Scientists aren’t sure how old the finger bone used for the DNA sequence really is. Archaeologists date it to 30,000 to 50,000 years old, but based on genetics alone, the biologists who conducted this study believe it could be 80,000 years old. It appears to have belonged to a juvenile female. She may have had dark skin, brown hair and brown eyes, based on genetic associations.


The genome analysis suggests that our ancestors and the Denisovans’ ancestors must have split from each other as far back as 700,000 years ago, although there’s uncertainty around that number. But it appears the Denisovans mixed with (and mated with) indigenous people in Papua New Guinea and Australia, Paabo said.


“They probably became extinct about the same time as Neandertals when modern humans spread around the world,” Paabo said.
By sequencing single strands of ancient DNA, the researchers confirmed that interbreeding with humans must have occurred, and that Denisovans are related to Neanderthals, said Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum London, who was not involved in the study.


The study also suggests that, on the whole, Europeans have less Neanderthal DNA than eastern populations. Even though Neanderthals mostly lived in Europe, people in eastern parts of Eurasia and Native Americans have more Neanderthal material than modern-day Europeans, said study co-author David Reich of Harvard University.


It could be that there were two separate gene flows into modern humans, or that there was a separate group of people who came from Africa into Europe but not Asia, said John Stewart of Bournemouth University, who was not involved in the study.


It appears the Denisovans had a low level of genetic diversity, which is consistent with Stewart and Stringer’s previous findings. Although scientists had only one finger bone to work with, a single person’s DNA contains signatures of a multitude of generations of ancestors.


This lack of diversity may also mean that Siberia wasn’t a core habitat for the Denisovans; perhaps they only went there during warm periods in small numbers but usually lived farther south.
Paabo’s study suggests the population may have begun small but quickly burgeoned, so genetic diversity didn’t have much time to increase. More research is needed to see if the Neanderthal population had a similar trajectory, the study found; if so, one single group of ancient creatures leaving Africa could have evolved into both Denisovans and Neanderthals.


Many questions remain unanswered, Stringer noted: What did Denisovans look like? Does the Denisovan DNA present in some humans today serve any function - and what about genetics from Neanderthals? Did Neanderthals and Denisovans mate with each other, too?


It’s likely that Denisovans and Neanderthals did interbeed, Stringer said, since they both lived in Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years, and there’s Neanderthal DNA in a fossil foot bone discovered in the same Denisovan cave.
“Recognition of such interbreeding will inevitably complicate the untangling of the relationships between these ancient groups of humans, and their contributions to people today,” Stringer said.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/201...thals-related-to-yet-another-group/?hpt=hp_t3

Based upon the Genelogy in Genesis I think they will eventually agree that the inbreeding that ocurred was between Modern Homo erectus and Early Homo erectus which started all the lines in the ascent of Modern man which passed them on through Neanderthal and us.


eretushybrid.jpg


Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian/Genesis and Methuselahian/Genesis kinds), 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 to 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 Methusaelian/Geneis, 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).
 



Interesting confirmations of Genesis 6:2-4 which adds credence to the fact that 40,000 years ago, indeed, all other types of ape-men went extinct just as God had said:


Gen. 6:6 And (in) it, (the evolutionary process), repented the LORD that he had made man, (all hominoids in general), on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (that cataclysmic changes were to come, a great Extinction).


Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Forc behind the ever unfolding Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).
 
I don't see the garbage. Another species of humans has been discovered. That is actually pretty cool and another interesting thing to add to anthropology. :clap
 
Interesting confirmations of Genesis 6:2-4 which adds credence to the fact that 40,000 years ago, indeed, all other types of ape-men went extinct just as God had said:


Gen. 6:6 And (in) it, (the evolutionary process), repented the LORD that he had made man, (all hominoids in general), on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (that cataclysmic changes were to come, a great Extinction).


Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Forc behind the ever unfolding Reality of the Univsaid, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).
Sorry, Dave, but there seems to be an awful lot of reading between (or into) the lines there. Just how much confirmation bias will the Bible stand before you might just as well throw your hands in the air and say, 'What the heck, I'll just write my own version'?
 
duplicate post, sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, Dave, but there seems to be an awful lot of reading between (or into) the lines there. Just how much confirmation bias will the Bible stand before you might just as well throw your hands in the air and say, 'What the heck, I'll just write my own version'?


There is no "reading between (or into) the lines " only interjected explanations, properly bracketed to separate commentary) of what the verse says and the verse's inferences to the facts of our science.
 
There is no "reading between (or into) the lines " only interjected explanations, properly bracketed to separate commentary) of what the verse says and the verse's inferences to the facts of our science.
And these 'interjected explanations' don't amount to 'reading between (or into) the lines' how, exactly? in other words, what determines that these 'properly bracketed' commentaries are correct other than what appears to be your need to see the Bible conform with your explanation? How do Yiu know that 'it' is intended to refer to 'the evolutionary process', for example?
 
And these 'interjected explanations' don't amount to 'reading between (or into) the lines' how, exactly? in other words, what determines that these 'properly bracketed' commentaries are correct other than what appears to be your need to see the Bible conform with your explanation? How do Yiu know that 'it' is intended to refer to 'the evolutionary process', for example?


Of course explanations of the text of the Bible are not "reading between the lines" but the same as all other interpretations.

The whole Amplified Bible is written with this technique applied throughout.
That Bible suggests and explains what the editors have understood the text to be saying directly, not between the lines.


As an example, the Amplified Buble tries to explain Gen 5:2 which tells us that Adam was not an individuasl person, but a reference to a type of humanoid.

Compare what those Bible editors came up with, bracketed and clearly separate from the other text, and what the Theistic Evolution Bible claims to make better modern sense of Gen 5:2:


Genesis 5

Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 He created them male and female and blessed them and named them [both] Adam [Man] at the time they were created.


Theistic Evilution Bible (TEB)
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.
 
How do Yiu know that 'it' is intended to refer to 'the evolutionary process', for example?


Simple.
Extinction is part of the Theory of Evolution.

So the truth, as modern man now understands it, is used to support the bible.
 
Of course explanations of the text of the Bible are not "reading between the lines" but the same as all other interpretations.

The whole Amplified Bible is written with this technique applied throughout.
That Bible suggests and explains what the editors have understood the text to be saying directly, not between the lines.


As an example, the Amplified Buble tries to explain Gen 5:2 which tells us that Adam was not an individuasl person, but a reference to a type of humanoid.

Compare what those Bible editors came up with, bracketed and clearly separate from the other text, and what the Theistic Evolution Bible claims to make better modern sense of Gen 5:2:


Genesis 5

Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 He created them male and female and blessed them and named them [both] Adam [Man] at the time they were created.


Theistic Evilution Bible (TEB)
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.


The amplified bible actually uses the words from the bible derived from their actual Hebrew meaning."Both" can be inferred from "them." "Adam" implies "man"

You, on the other hand, have taken absolute and extreme liberal additions that cannot be inferred from the words of the bible, alone.

"Adam" does not imply "species.



Calling what you do the TEB does not validate you putting context where there it shouldn't be.
 
They're at it again.

Remember Hesperopithecus? Man, wife, children, cave etc ? Well all that was deduced from the tooth of a peccary (wild pig).

Sounds similar here. All that from a bit of finger and two teeth????

Give 'em time. They'll be swallowing words by the dozen soon.

But in my mind, it does cast very serious doubt on all this genome sequencing process.

Just imagine, as I've said to Barbarian in another connection, they can identify his ancestor as a crab louse in the Cambrian!

How? By genome sequencing and... an awful lot of assumptions, imagination, and guesswork.

It's the old computer algorithm again. Feed the data in, and you can come up with miracles of identification.

Garbage in, garbage out.

A little bit of common sense works wonders - but there's a severe lack of that in palaeoanthropology.

Give 'em time. You'll see.
 
They're at it again.

Remember Hesperopithecus? Man, wife, children, cave etc ? Well all that was deduced from the tooth of a peccary (wild pig).
You left out how at the time of this recycled pig tooth nonsense that most of the peers of the scientists had refuted the anthropologist's claim and their was no consensus in the scientific community that agreed with him. The Scientists eventually retracted his own claims and apologized after not being able to find anymore evidence and it was discovered that he did find a pig's tooth.

Sounds similar here. All that from a bit of finger and two teeth????
Actually in this case the scientists thought they just found more neanderthal remains and DNA testing revealed that these specimens were from an entirely different species.

The only similarity between the 2 accounts is a tooth. Otherwise everything is completely opposite. We actually convict murderers and rapists on less evidence.

Give 'em time. They'll be swallowing words by the dozen soon.
I don't think so, considering that out of the small percentage of fakes, there has actually been an overwhelming amount of actual discoveries and study.

But in my mind, it does cast very serious doubt on all this genome sequencing process.
Do you trust this same science that we use to convict murderers and rapists?

Just imagine, as I've said to Barbarian in another connection, they can identify his ancestor as a crab louse in the Cambrian!
And you can't really demonstrate how we are not related to Cambrian organisms, just scoff at it. So I'll side with Barbarian and the scientists.

How? By genome sequencing and... an awful lot of assumptions, imagination, and guesswork.
You are showing your ignorance and your complete dishonesty since multiple people have explained to you the science. I'm starting to wonder if you actually get paid to do this.
 
The amplified bible actually uses the words from the bible derived from their actual Hebrew meaning."Both" can be inferred from "them." "Adam" implies "man"

You, on the other hand, have taken absolute and extreme liberal additions that cannot be inferred from the words of the bible, alone.

"Adam" does not imply "species.



Calling what you do the TEB does not validate you putting context where there it shouldn't be.


1) Yes, the amplified bible in the case of Gen 5:2 merely interjects comments such as "both," which seems unnecessary in this case.

That makes my point that bracketed interjections do NOT "add" to what is written.

2) The Amplified Bible editors then attempt to explain away this capitalized use of the word Adam in this strange reference to Adam as them, by merely suggesting it means "man," generically.

But that suggestion is out-of-context with every other name that follows in the genealogy listed in Genesis 5.

Each of the next 12 names specifically refers to ONLY a male.
 
1) Yes, the amplified bible in the case of Gen 5:2 merely interjects comments such as "both," which seems unnecessary in this case.

That makes my point that bracketed interjections do NOT "add" to what is written.

2) The Amplified Bible editors then attempt to explain away this capitalized use of the word Adam in this strange reference to Adam as them, by merely suggesting it means "man," generically.

But that suggestion is out-of-context with every other name that follows in the genealogy listed in Genesis 5.

Each of the next 12 names specifically refers to ONLY a male.


1) It depends on what is placed within those brackets. There is a fundamental difference between what you do and what the Amplified bible does. You place out of context commentary which does not add clarity or make the best use of the word it is meant to modify.

Your interjections DO add to what is written.

2) The Amplified bible merely relies on the meaning of the word "Adam" from the Hebrew, which literally means "man."

Relying on a literal definition is not "explaining away" anything, especially context that was never there to begin with.



"Adam" is also given as a single male as well. There are 2 Adams in Gen 5.


The first is Strong's H120 and means a generic man. It is used in instances like Gen 1:26 where God says" Let us make adam in our image" or Lev 24:17 "He that killeth any adam shall be put to death.

The Adam that follows in the genealogy of Gen 5 is Strong's H121. It only appears 9 times in the bible, and the context is regarding a single named person, the first man.


The adam of Gen 5:2 is a seperate entity from the other mentions of Adam in Gen 5.
 
They're at it again.

Remember Hesperopithecus? Man, wife, children, cave etc ? Well all that was deduced from the tooth of a peccary (wild pig).
Wrong. That would be journalists (the London Illustrated News, IIRC). Osborn never identified Hesperopithecus as a human ancestor.
Sounds similar here. All that from a bit of finger and two teeth????
Science has moved on a bit from the 1920s. I would have thought that, as a scientist (in which field? I've forgotten), you would have known that.
Give 'em time. They'll be swallowing words by the dozen soon.
On what grounds do you suppose this to be the case?
But in my mind, it does cast very serious doubt on all this genome sequencing process.
But what goes on in your mind is not evidential.
Just imagine, as I've said to Barbarian in another connection, they can identify his ancestor as a crab louse in the Cambrian!
Can 'they'? Citations?
How? By genome sequencing and... an awful lot of assumptions, imagination, and guesswork.
Well, until you provide relevant citations, this seems to be a strawman you have set up so you can have fun beating on it.
It's the old computer algorithm again. Feed the data in, and you can come up with miracles of identification.

Garbage in, garbage out.
You mean rather like the 'miracles of identification' that can establish paternity and the identification of bones as most likely those of the murdered Romanoffs?
A little bit of common sense works wonders - but there's a severe lack of that in palaeoanthropology.

Give 'em time. You'll see.
Common sense is not a reliable guide to all observed phenomena. Common sense tells you that the Sun orbits Earth and that Earth is at the centre of the Universe. All you have to do is look.
 
1)





The first is Strong's H120 and means a generic man. It is used in instances like Gen 1:26 where God says" Let us make adam in our image" or Lev 24:17 "He that killeth any adam shall be put to death.

The Adam that follows in the genealogy of Gen 5 is Strong's H121. It only appears 9 times in the bible, and the context is regarding a single named person, the first man.


The adam of Gen 5:2 is a seperate entity from the other mentions of Adam in Gen 5.


Fine and all true, but regardless of that, Gen 5:2 STILL tells us that "man and woman" are a SPECIES called "Adam," (or "Man"), i.e.; a totally new species and one different from all other species up to that moment.
 
Back
Top