View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 4:54 am



Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Ancient human sub-species interbred 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Ancient human sub-species interbred
Found this interesting from a scientific perspective. Also, wonder how Bible followers infused with DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans feel about all of this?

Quote:
Ancient human sub-species interbred

For ancient humans evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago it was a case of "vive la difference" as new forms emerged and interbred, research suggests.

Scientists believe everyone living today has a mixed bag of genes inherited from a range of now-extinct human sub-species.

DNA studies have already proved that ancestors of modern humans got intimate with Neanderthals in Europe and another Asian relative called the Denisovans.

This happened relatively recently, some time after Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa between 55,000 and 60,000 years ago.

But now scientists have claimed our earliest ancestors were playing the field with other kinds of human much further back in time. Interbreeding between the different sub-species may date to beyond the point when anatomically modern humans first emerged 200,000 years ago.

Examples of now-extinct humans who may have contributed to the modern gene pool include the "upright walking man", Homo erectus, and "tool-using man", Homo habilis.

Fossil remains show that from 700,000 years onwards, Homo erectus was evolving populations with larger brains.

Michael Hammer, from the University of Arizona, who led the research, said: "We found evidence for hybridisation between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa. It looks like our lineage has always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbours. We think there were probably thousands of interbreeding events. It happened relatively extensively and regularly."

The evidence does not come from analysing preserved samples of ancient human DNA from African fossil bones. Little of this survives due to the tropical conditions, unlike DNA preserved in the cold climate of ice age Europe and Asia. Instead, the scientists looked at the DNA of modern African populations and searched for unusual regions of the genome, or genetic code.

The findings have been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 7th, 2011, 10:56 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Evidence seems shaky... this is the stuff that bothers me. Scientist see a mix bag of genes then come up with a reason and call it good. Fact is, we have no idea and likely never will.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 7th, 2011, 11:04 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
And there are similarities between apes and humans but that doesn't mean we interbred. Even when it comes to neanderthal and other subspecies that they claim were the norm, how many skeletal remains have they found? Have they found enough to say that every single person during that timeline were the same?

I'm not trying to say that there couldn't be a realistic possibility of what popular science believes, but say we had a volcanic event or mass flood that wiped out most of civilization. Imagine 500 years from now, the new civilization discovered the remains of a house with a house of dwarves or midgets, whichever PC term you want to use. Would they place them into a timeline as a link? In my area here, there is a small town or village where midgets all live together. If everything was wiped away or like the tropic area that distorts DNA, except that area, what theories would they come up with then?

That's one of the problems I have with studies like this. Sometimes very possible scenarios are backed up by very limited data that could be an anomaly. The human race has so many anomalies that show up regularly now, (midgets, mongloids, etc..) that when placed under a small microscope could lead to misleading assumptions if they aren't examined from taking a wider view.

From my experience... Science is usually wrong, until its proven correct. PLuto was a planet, now its not, but now that they found 7 more moons, it might just be again soon. New data always seems to change the results, not reinforce them, because you can't possibly imagine what the reality is until something else is discovered. Science is a wonderful journey that sometimes we focus on the process more than what the final result may be.


September 7th, 2011, 3:26 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
This is very early in the theory stage, I think some here are taking these preliminary findings as gospel and I didn't interpret it that way. But when you take a common sense approach it makes sense since man is known to bang just about anything.

Sure science proves to be wrong much of the time, the beauty of science is that it is flexible rather than completely rigid, allowing our understanding of things to evolve in ever complex ways on a daily basis. Just imagine if science got stuck in thinking that everything we thought 2,000 years ago still held true today - what a drain on our progress/development of a species that would be.

steensn, why does evidence that "seems shaky" bother you? I seem to recall that much of your life revolves around evidence that is rather shaky (and in that case also lacks a supporting common sense element).

Also, if God created man in his image - which "man" are we talking about? homo neanderthalis? homo erectus? homo hobilis? homo sapiens? or the inbred version walking the Earth today?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 7th, 2011, 3:48 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Pablo, of the Biblical part, there is no issue with evolution so any weird questions or angles you want to come up with are not that provacative... so I'll just ignore them.

The reason the evidence being shaken bothers me is the way the evidence is portrayed. They say lots of things that seem like they are still "looking into it." But then make statements like, "It happened relatively extensively and regularly." What bothers me is the reaction we have to this. Because "some scientist believe" something it will be taught in school before it is mature enough to be confirmed.

I HONESTLY would have logically came to a conclusion that if liek species existed close enough they would interbreed. It happens all the time... the idea is not the issue for me, it is the way the scientific process is portrayed. I promise you that before it has firm footing there will be a question on an exam that says, "Early homosapiens regularly interbreed with other species, true or false." To get it right you'd have to answer true... that is the issue I have. It happens way too much.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 7th, 2011, 4:31 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
steensn wrote:
Pablo, of the Biblical part, there is no issue with evolution so any weird questions or angles you want to come up with are not that provacative... so I'll just ignore them.

The reason the evidence being shaken bothers me is the way the evidence is portrayed. They say lots of things that seem like they are still "looking into it." But then make statements like, "It happened relatively extensively and regularly." What bothers me is the reaction we have to this. Because "some scientist believe" something it will be taught in school before it is mature enough to be confirmed.

I HONESTLY would have logically came to a conclusion that if liek species existed close enough they would interbreed. It happens all the time... the idea is not the issue for me, it is the way the scientific process is portrayed. I promise you that before it has firm footing there will be a question on an exam that says, "Early homosapiens regularly interbreed with other species, true or false." To get it right you'd have to answer true... that is the issue I have. It happens way too much.


Some will have issue with the Biblical part, I'm glad you can think more broadly and from an accepting viewpoint.

It is interesting that you draw a conclusion that this will now be taught in school and that leads me to... Given the lack of evidence, I have to believe that you totally support teaching evolution in school given mountains of evidence supporting the theory and are against teaching creationism given the total lack of evidence. Just want to make sure you are consistent in your stance...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 7th, 2011, 4:56 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Pablo wrote:
Some will have issue with the Biblical part, I'm glad you can think more broadly and from an accepting viewpoint.


I've been clear on this for years. It isn't a salvation issue so who cares? That is usually my take when talking to someone.

Pablo wrote:
It is interesting that you draw a conclusion that this will now be taught in school and that leads me to... Given the lack of evidence, I have to believe that you totally support teaching evolution in school given mountains of evidence supporting the theory and are against teaching creationism given the total lack of evidence. Just want to make sure you are consistent in your stance...


Evolution should absolutaly, as a general idea, be taught in schools. The specifics should be filtered as those are not clearly known and change every year it seems like. But in general, you will hardly find even a Christian that doesn' agree there is at least micro evolution. That is a good starting point. Macro evolution has a butt load of evidence which I have accepted as the basis for my belief because it is so solid. Look at my post from 2003 and on.. you'll see a much different belief. I think it is a shame that young Christians are sometimes not given the opportunity to see how much God is required for evolution to work ;)

What we need to watch out is teaching the "best guess" at the time. Like gradual evolution to punctuated equilibrium to ??? None of these were more than best guesses at the time with little data or fact driven support. All were taught as fact far before evidence did or didn't exist.

I find it interesting you don't see this being taught in school quickly with the laundyr list of items just as flaky that have been taught or were taught incredibly too soon. I know you like to write this off as "well that is the beauty of science." accept the scientific process is NOT followed when things are taught as "fact" much too soon. IMO it is a cop-out to the issue I presented and false implications that specifics of beliefs cannot change as more evidence is shown. If the clear main point of the belief isn't compromised, then we are just arguing semantics in the grand scheme of things.

There is just too much smoke and mirrors thrown out there when we talk about what science has gotten wrong. Typically the things science get's wrong is when scientist overstate what they have found. It is a PROBLEM that no one wants to acknowledge, but rather write it off as a "that is the the beauty of science" without acknowledging that we should refine ourselves a bit before he jump out on nothing better than ideas. You simply cannot write this off as a positive... it's not. Being flexible is a benifit, being able to move away from mistakes is a benefit, but the mistakes are STILL a problem especially with honest discussion we could eliminate most of them.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 7th, 2011, 5:38 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
steensn, you didn't answer my burning question - do you think Creationism should be taught in school?

As for your issue with science being taught, I think you are worried about something that isn't that big of a deal. Science (and my brother is a science teacher) is taught often in theories and not as absolute fact. If a student lacks a filter to understand this, then that student has bigger issues to start with. Many things I was taught from a science perspective as a child have proven to be false, I have survived with little to zero negative impact.

If you want to wait to share theories until they are proved absolutely true, fine. Then you are willing to dramatically slow down scientific progress since an idea can be worked from many angles once shared.

What is worse:

Teaching a belief (lacking any evidence) to an impressionable child as a "truth"?

or

Teaching a scientific "theory" (with some evidence but not completely proven) to a student?

I'm interested to see if you are intellectually honest and consistent here or playing by double standards.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 7th, 2011, 6:05 pm
Profile WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2795
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Science has to simply be taught with the mindset that all the findings themselves are evolving. I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in schools, but I'm against the exclusion of Creationism. And while some say its impossible to prove, its also impossible to disprove. Add in the fact that creationism combined with evolution is also a possibility. Believing in a supreme being seems like a stretch to some, just like a one-time event such as the big bang theory is a stretch to others.

To truly educate, you need to let students look at the date themselves and come up with their own questions. Why do students become scientists? Because they have serious questions they want answered and believe that they can help find the answers. If you teach in absolutes and exclude any beliefs that might contradict those absolutes, then why would those students seek answers to questions they don't have? And it goes the other way for those that want to exclude evolution for an exclusive creationism education.


September 7th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Pablo wrote:
steensn, you didn't answer my burning question - do you think Creationism should be taught in school?


Matters on the society, we are no longer a Christian nation so the national laws disctate that we don't. IMO if we had a Christian nation still I would say yes... but since we are not then no. I have an option right now to send my child to a Christian school where both would be taught, so I still have that option.

Our country and society dictate what we should or shouldn't teach. Until the US gov't forces me to not teach my children about God I have no issues. If for some reason our society changed and we were a Christian nation again I would push for Jesus being taught in schools. Since we aren't, I'll do it with my children.

Pablo wrote:
As for your issue with science being taught, I think you are worried about something that isn't that big of a deal. Science (and my brother is a science teacher) is taught often in theories and not as absolute fact. If a student lacks a filter to understand this, then that student has bigger issues to start with. Many things I was taught from a science perspective as a child have proven to be false, I have survived with little to zero negative impact.


Some yes, some no, but it IS an issue. If we teach our kids lies, they will know lies. All we need to do is teach our children wrong enough as some point and we ruin a whole generation.

Pablo wrote:
If you want to wait to share theories until they are proved absolutely true, fine. Then you are willing to dramatically slow down scientific progress since an idea can be worked from many angles once shared.


BS, some things DON'T really even need to be taught at that deep of a level in high school and college student SHOULD be shown new ideas and theories as such. But we are going out of our way to teach things that simply could be filled more solid sciencific topics. Seems like an unecessary issue doesn't it? We have piles of solid science to teach, why teahc questonable things in high school?

Pablo wrote:

What is worse:

Teaching a belief (lacking any evidence) to an impressionable child as a "truth"?

or

Teaching a scientific "theory" (with some evidence but not completely proven) to a student?

I'm interested to see if you are intellectually honest and consistent here or playing by double standards.


They are not the same situation and it depends on the society. The later is unacceptable IMO because it is unecessary. The firts depends solely on the society.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 7th, 2011, 7:12 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
Okay, my turn to jump in....

Pablo, to your question about what is worse:

I believe that both should be taught. Here is the reason why: if you only push the one based upon limited and sometimes sketchy physical evidence then you are only offering the one vein of thought. But if you offer the other, you are now opening up the "right to choose."

In a very vague way it is like Soviet Grocery Shopping: You will stand in line for long hours only to get inside and find that every one gets bread, not various kinds, not tasty, but bread nonetheless.

Another concern that I have is that you are demanding proof for something that comes from the heart and not the head. The heart knows truths which the head can not fathom. The existence of God as we've spoken of in other threads is an issue of relationship which comes from the heart. As I've said before you don't love your family with your head, you love them with your heart.

Back on point: There is physical evidence that proves there was a great flood. According to the Bible, this would have happened with Noah, and his family. But there is a dedicated effort to silence the Biblical truths because of the truth that would bring forth behind it. What I mean is, if the Bible were indeed verified by the system of events and time and places, then the references to what is required of man now puts us on the hotseat. By ignoring the truth it doesn't make it any more untrue, it just means that someone is deliberately ignoring a set guideline because they don't agree.

I don't agree with the healthcare law, and i will refuse to purchase insurance as required if the judicial system doesn't strike it down permanently. This will mean jail time as it will be a federal offense for me to not buy into the government system. My point being I have a penalty to pay for ignoring something that I don't agree with, even if it is a law.

But getting back on point again, teaching both would be the best option and then you leave the actually choice up to the kids. But then you get into such things as delivery. If you are for or against it, will matter on how its delivered to the students, I doubt there would be any good middle of the road teachers on this.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


September 8th, 2011, 8:34 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9494
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
WarEr4Christ wrote:
I believe that both should be taught. Here is the reason why: if you only push the one based upon limited and sometimes sketchy physical evidence then you are only offering the one vein of thought. But if you offer the other, you are now opening up the "right to choose."


Right to choose? Interesting response, then based on that "logic" we should teach more than two potential answers in that case - I mean, we should give them multiple options from which to choose.

In the case of evolution, we have overwhelming supporting evidence from the fossil record to DNA studies. Despite all that, however, we should give students the option of choosing creationism. But given we have one option with tons of evidence and one with no evidence, how do we choose the creationism theory as the one to teach. There are many other theories out their with as much evidence, for example shouldn't we then also lets students have a choice at the Scientology thoeory of where we all come from?

If we are going to give them choices, shouldn't we really give them plenty of theories to choose from?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


September 8th, 2011, 9:45 am
Profile WWW
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
I knew this was going to be a slippery slope as soon as I stepped out....

Your supposed evidence is flawed and maybe the goes back to what Steesn had said about macro dna. Because if i remember correctly from another thread, DNA has proven that we ALL have an ORIGINAL parent, mother and father.

If that is the case (i'm sure there's controversy) then that eliminates the cross breeding theory, because it only gives 1 human line.

I'm getting out of my comfort zone because I"m not a scientist, and I can effectively explain what I know in my heart so that you can understand it with your head.

You say you need to see before you believe, and I say you need to believe before you can truly see, but I can't make that step for you, that's why they call it faith. It's a personal choice, and individual decision.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


September 8th, 2011, 10:32 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 1:25 am
Posts: 4918
Location: Hills of Auburn
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
I think people are completely missing the crucial evidence as to the flaw in this entire article.

The scientists name is Michael Hammer which as social scientist believe would set him up to be somewhat of a stud. Naturally in school he would be robust and well liked among his peers and focus his school age time (K-12) on more of the social aspects of life and engaged in sports activities clearly diminishing his capabilities to thrive academnically. That being said he would never have really pursued such a rigorous academnic path to become a scientist who studies ancient civilizations. The obvious conclusion would be that either this is a fabricated person or that Michaels real name is something more akin to Michael Lebowitzc and he at some point changed his name. Either conclusion you come to completely removes all weight and credibility from the article. The other potential theory that scientists all believe is that Michael "the Hammer" Hammer is not unlike Freud in his obsession with sex and is thus projecting his own personal fantasies upon the once esteemed ancient men and now producing false information to make those who are not around to defend their honor into specie whoring sluts.

That's the leading scientific consensus at least for the last 5 minutes.


This is my absolute favorite statement in the article lol...

Quote:
Scientists believe...

_________________
Regards, Alpha|Lionbacker.com \(^o^)/
"I date this girl for two years and then the nagging starts: I wanna know your name..." - Mike Binder


September 8th, 2011, 10:46 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Ancient human sub-species interbred
theAlphaMale wrote:
I think people are completely missing the crucial evidence as to the flaw in this entire article.

The scientists name is Michael Hammer which as social scientist believe would set him up to be somewhat of a stud. Naturally in school he would be robust and well liked among his peers and focus his school age time (K-12) on more of the social aspects of life and engaged in sports activities clearly diminishing his capabilities to thrive academnically. That being said he would never have really pursued such a rigorous academnic path to become a scientist who studies ancient civilizations. The obvious conclusion would be that either this is a fabricated person or that Michaels real name is something more akin to Michael Lebowitzc and he at some point changed his name. Either conclusion you come to completely removes all weight and credibility from the article. The other potential theory that scientists all believe is that Michael "the Hammer" Hammer is not unlike Freud in his obsession with sex and is thus projecting his own personal fantasies upon the once esteemed ancient men and now producing false information to make those who are not around to defend their honor into specie whoring sluts.

That's the leading scientific consensus at least for the last 5 minutes.


This is my absolute favorite statement in the article lol...

Quote:
Scientists believe...



I could never capture it any more sarcastically... great job! That should be made a sticky!

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 8th, 2011, 10:49 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.