by cappytan 22 Replies latest jw friends
It is now thought that we have been interbreeding with Neanderthals as early as 100,000 years ago.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
Craziest thing I just realized: some women still breed with Neanderthals up to this day. Rihanna and Chris Brown anyone?
Charlie Sheen is the one who pops into my head, actually. But maybe you are thinking of Troglodytes, not Neanderthals. : P
John Hawks wrote a nice article on the implications a couple of weeks back:
https://aeon.co/opinions/human-evolution-is-more-a-muddy-delta-than-a-branching-tree
TL:DR - it's possible there were many species of hominins who could inter-breed over several million years. We're only just at the start of identifying them if so.
When a person gets their DNA tested by genetic testing websites and companies like 23 & Me the results provided aren't only what nationality your DNA tested as - but what percentage Neanderthal you are. They can tell that from testing your DNA too.
I took the " 23 & Me " DNA test and found lots of English, Scottish, Irish blood, some French & German AND I'm 3.1 % Neanderthal. The typical average for most humans is about 2.5 % . It stated that the fact that I'm 3.1 Neanderthal puts me at 98 % more Neanderthal than the rest of the human race. Pretty weird. Probably explains why I like to smell things a lot and why I'm forever chasing Bigfoot trying to find some lost relatives or something. LOL. Peace out. Mr. Flipper
Dude, all I know is that "once you've gone 'thal, you'll NEVER go back!"
Science article Watchtower style:
Where were Adam and Eve created?
The Bible is the best evidence that the first humans were created in the Middle East.
But many evolutionists want to believe that humans originated in Africa.
Do the facts show their beliefs are correct?
Dr Sergi Castellano, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Germany, said about the importance of this issue: "It is significant for understanding the history of [...] humans [...]."
What do the facts show about the location of first humans?
Previously some have "suggested that humans [...] migrated out of Africa and began to spread around the world.
As they left the continent, they [...] lived across Europe and Asia."
However, speaking about human presence in continents other than Africa, a scientist comments:
"The latest finding suggests otherwise. [This] was happening thousands of years earlier."
In fact, humans were nowhere to be found in Africa in the earliest human history.
Speaking about giving birth to children, the same scientist comments that the evidence shows that "early humans were [...] doing so outside of Africa because our close relatives were not found there."
"And this means that [raising families in Africa] took place at least [many] years later."
Since humans were in Africa 'later', they must have been on other continents 'earlier'.
Clearly this proves that human migration started in the Garden of Eden, not in Africa
"The functional significance of this is unclear at the moment," said Dr Castellano. "However, the findings do shed more light on the history of human migration."
If scientists are unclear about how to interpret the available evidence, how can they pretend to be able to reject God's all-knowing wisdom?
Commenting on the study Prof Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins, from the Natural History Museum in London, said: "[...]we really don't know how widespread [...] early [...] humans might have been in the regions between Arabia and China at this time."
He added: "At the moment we simply don't know [...] the possibilities [...]. [We] will need a lot more data before that becomes possible."
Yes, those who are blinded by Satan want to believe lies about human origins that are contradicted by the evidence.
But True Christians accept the abundantly available evidence that shows Adam and Eve were created in the Middle East, and reject the satanic propaganda of those opposing biblical truth.
And again science shows the Bible to be correct!
Mephis, I think your article excellent. The 'muddy delta' and 'braided river' are a very good visual analogies of the back-crossing of species in evolution. Repeated hybridization would allow for the best traits to be put to use for survival. There is no reason to single out the genus Homo for this treatment, for it must hold true for all living things.
The revelation of genome details cannot possibly be explained by creation.
The problem which Linnaeus and others were stuck with was the misleading rigid Biblical notion of distinct "kinds". Linnaeus nevertheless had to work within his limited scientific means yet did an invaluable service to the life-sciences in creating a very workable labeling system. Perhaps this too will be replaced by a genomic definition in the near future?
Anders, faux Watchtower drivel at its finest!
