The Neanderthal Problem

[Dages]

Reminder that fossil are static item of an individual.

"Evolution" is a transition process happening over populations.  
Finding a bone that matches a "prediction" is not an experiment; it is post-hoc rationalization and confirmation bias.

So they can show some fossil, that won't demonstrate their evolution theory.

[Percy]

47 minutes ago, Dages said:

Reminder that fossil are static item of an individual.

"Evolution" is a transition process happening over populations.  
Finding a bone that matches a "prediction" is not an experiment; it is post-hoc rationalization and confirmation bias.

So they can show some fossil, that won't demonstrate their evolution theory.

I call it EVOMAGINATION. haha.

[Shawnster]

The Neanderthal from Altamura was human.  Glad they agree 

 

[Percy]

40 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

The Neanderthal from Altamura was human.  Glad they agree 

 

I wonder how much thought they gave it? 

[Witness1970]

A person gets 50% of their DNA from each parent.  Over generations the DNA becomes more and more diluted.  If you could check the DNA of one of your actual ancestors from 1,000 years ago (about 30 generations) you will probably find little to NO evidence that that person was your ancestor.

 

I am not sure how to apply this to the topic, but it just came to mind while reading the other posts.

 

 

[LeolaRootStew]

I wonder how accurate the renditions will be proven to be. If people are going to be resurrected looking like that, they aren't going to be cough cough highly attractive from our perspective; of course, I know these renditions are often wildly wrong, so hopefully…

 

We'll probably laugh at this with them some day. 

Edited 18 hours ago by LeolaRootStew

[Percy]

6 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

A person gets 50% of their DNA from each parent.  Over generations the DNA becomes more and more diluted.  If you could check the DNA of one of your actual ancestors from 1,000 years ago (about 30 generations) you will probably find little to NO evidence that that person was your ancestor.

 

I am not sure how to apply this to the topic, but it just came to mind while reading the other posts.

 

 

30 generations in 1000 years? A little math gives only 150-180 generations to Adam. Not that many. 

I have a Mormon background through my mother and they love to do family trees. One I saw went right back to Adam. The connection was an early Israelite moving to the British Isles and that became the connection to Adam. I would have thought Japheth was my connection, but there you have it. haha.

 

I have a feeling that 'neanderthals' were from Cain. They were a more robust human and we still have a few around. Before the Flood and the angels there was much more mixing and that may have been where the wives of Noah and his sons came from. Just speculation though. 

 

The fact they are mostly found in caves is weird. Wouldn't you want to live in a cave, but send bodies outside of caves to be buried? The ones found seemed to have been trapped inside when they died.

 

 

[Jim Jam]

12 minutes ago, Percy said:

They were a more robust human

 

They were robust because they adapted to the cold climate of Europe which was undergoing an ice age. Their sturdy physiology kept them warm, and they would also take refuge in caves.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jim Jam

[Percy]

29 minutes ago, Jim Jam said:

 

They were robust because they adapted to the cold climate of Europe which was undergoing an ice age. Their sturdy physiology kept them warm, and they would also take refuge in caves.

Please keep in mind that if you study the introduction of the theory of the Ice Age, it was an alternative to the Flood changing the surface of the earth, but in 'slomo' (slow motion). The theory originated in England with the enormous scattered boulders around the land, some on tops of hills. They came to be called 'glacial erratics' to shift your attention away from what really caused them to be spread around the earth, even in areas not reached by the theoretical wall of ice.

 

If there was an Ice Age then how could millions of animals in the Arctic eat enough to stay alive? Mammoths like elephants eat 500 pounds of food per day, yet they have been found as herds buried in the frozen muck.

 

The Arctic today has seasonal ice, except for Greenland, and even with that, the flora there does not match what was in the stomachs of animals found somewhat intact buried in the Tundra. If you put 1000s of feet of ice there, nothing would grow. Too cold and hostile for animals to live. Yet the scientists tell us animals thrived there. So which is it? 

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Percy said:

30 generations in 1000 years?

 

That would be 33.3 years in length each generation. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Shawnster

[minister159]

9 hours ago, Witness1970 said:

A person gets 50% of their DNA from each parent.  Over generations the DNA becomes more and more diluted.  If you could check the DNA of one of your actual ancestors from 1,000 years ago (about 30 generations) you will probably find little to NO evidence that that person was your ancestor.

 

I am not sure how to apply this to the topic, but it just came to mind while reading the other posts.

 

 

I found this to be interesting regarding the "Y" chromosome that is passed from father to son exclusively, generation after generation.

 

"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal Adam (more technically known as the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor, shortened to Y-MRCA), is the patrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended. He is the most recent male from whom all living humans are descended through an unbroken line of their male ancestors. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor."