Not posting for religious debate, just interesting that is was in the Balkans, and not Africa.


https://phys.org/news/2017-05-scientists-million-year-old-pre-human-balkans.html

The funny thing about all this is you won't ever, under any circumstance convince an pure evolutionist of intelligent design, and you won't convince some creationists that the world is older than about 4,000 years. Their minds are made up. I think stuff like this is really interesting.

Judging by tooth wear that one was a trophy.

i just don't worry about the various time theories.
this development IS interesting, but i don't understand why evolutionists insist there was a "split" between apes and man. sure, we share basic building blocks. why not? i never did buy the africa-as-cradle-of-man theory. that's just the first place old parts were found.

Because without a split, we didn't all come from a single ancient organism. It's hard enough for anyone to believe that we all came from a single-cell organism, but for multiple different single-cell organisms to all evolve? Even evolutionists know that's not possible.

Several articles written about this find are really fun reading. The assumptions made and the erroneous way of aging a tooth and a jawbone, well they are laughable. But evolutionists will report it as fact and create this brand new narrative on the history of man. It must be nice to just make up stuff and have it turned into fact.

(See, didn't even have to mention religion)

That thing had a smile only a mother could love.

Looks like a mold of my teef

I will The Catholic church actually endorses evolution, but probably with a component of intelligent design.

Between the young-earthers and the "evolution as a random act of science", I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

BioLogos.Org has a lot of really interesting theories about evolution guided by intelligent design. Not looking for a debate or even a discussion, just fyi.

There were Giants,dwarfs and normal human beings in history. But no transitional beings. A dog is similar to a rat but the dog didn't evolve from the rat. Matter of fact I've not seen or read of any evolving species in the last 200 years. Deformed but not new or transitional.

I figure Troy will be along soon to tell us how old he was.

So if evolution happened why did it stop? Has everything on earth completed it's evolution cycle? If so why? And who decided that? Is evolution just a freak of nature? Like a snake growing legs to become a lizard?

Men are now wearing rompers. It hasn't stopped, although this could be considered devolution.

Evolution (macro kind) is a farce of epic proportions offered up by those in the historical sciences who rejected that God created and designed all we know in the universe. That's not bringing religion into it, that is simple fact based on the writings of the early evolutionists that were the founders of the movement today.

They had to have some explanation. They could dig in the rocks and find evidence. But historical sciences cannot be studied with the typical scientific method....observing, testing and repeating to figure it out. No one alive today was there to observe. Also there was no written record to talk about what was alive when and how things worked other than the Bible which was rejected as being a myth. So they speculate to fit their narrative they want. The 7 million years came up because the jawbone was found in a strata of rock that the secular scientific community declares is 7 million+ years old based on marine fossils found viewed from an evolutionary process--ignoring the tons of "anomolies" globally that refute this aging system. Total crock. Early geologists did the work that brought this thinking to the mainstream and it has stuck. Their thought process: "If God didn't create, then evolution must be the answer...and looky here the rock strata shows the evolution so let's assign ages based on processes we can see today."

Some historical sciences are very accurate because the time frame in which they are observing is relatively close and not millions of years old. We hear about digs that uncover ruins all across the Middle East, Mediterranean and Europe--digs of buried cities and even finding manuscripts and symbols. Cool Stuff that is worth studying. Skinny will do a dig in Alabama and get data and information on the native American village to come up with a sound idea of what life was like then and even put good dates together. Tremendous work on the study of Early civilizations in the old world and also in America before Europeans came. Not bashing this work at all...I really enjoy it actually. However,
this kind of historical science is very different than the geologists and paleontologists finding a jawbone in the Balkans in some rock they say is 7 million years old....very different from ideas and theories being self-declared as fact to the point that it is just accepted today as truth.

Man did not evolve from chimps or other apes--which evolved from some other earlier form of something--which evolved from something else, and so on. The entire notion is absurd.

Before the atheist evolutionists and deceived Christian evolutionists chime in---evolution in a micro sense (adaptation, natural selection, variation) does exist and is observable and testable.

There is no way that animals can evolve into completely different looking........ Well maybe dogs but nothing else.



Different breeds of dogs are created over a relatively short period of time.

by man ... ^

i'm going with "after its own kind." no splits, no macro evolution ...

Ive never bought into Africa being the cradle of civilization.
There have been ancient bones found all over the world and I have to question the dating process as being a guess like many things we don't know.
There will be no argument from me on either side of the coin whether or not the earth is thousands, millions or billions of years old because everything is an educated guess when it comes to the ancient.
I do like interesting finds like this because it makes me ask question even more like it should everyone

Wasn't there just a thread about high school girls being more mature than 20 years ago?

How big were average college football left tackles 50 years ago?

That's a stretch of micro evolution and technically not considered micro evolution as its due to nutrition and environment, not genetics.

I was just going devils advocate. I don't care either way other than I think God created the earth a whole lot longer than a few thousand years ago

I think I've seen some in Bham that's going the other way.

No, it has not stopped. But you are talking about a process that is incredibly slow. Evolution happens through random mutations at birth. A snake isn't going to just be slithering along one day and suddenly start to grow a leg as you mentioned. Most random mutations are harmful to the particular creature that is born with it and do not enhance it's ability to survive. Every once in a very rare while a creature is born with a random mutation that actually helps it survive better than the others of it's speices. Animals that survive better live longer to spread their genes to offspring that will also have the mutation or at least the potential for it. But there may be hundreds of thousands of life cycles in a certain species before such a beneficial mutation occurs if ever. And even then it may take a very long time for the decendents of that original genetic mutation to increase in numbers until they become the new normal for that species. We humans live about 80 years or so. That being the case it's pretty hard for us to observe a process as slow as evolution.

Exactly. And if artificial selection can generate the changes we see in animals in a relatively short period of time just imagine what natural selection can do over millions of years.

Good reading on Macroevolution

The problem with discussing topics like this is that the requested answers and evidence can require deeper reading than most people want to engage in. But the above link lays it out pretty well if you have the time and desire to read it.

hahahaha. That is reverse evolution men wearing rompers

LOL! Yes it is.

I agree, that is probably one of the best laid out sources for macroevolution out there to read. If one can ignore the wild guesses, gross errors in reasoning, false statemetns and manipulation, it actually makes sense.

Again, total devils advocate just because I enjoy the discussion;

But what is the defense of the other side, that they have to ignore? Besides faith, what The Bible says and you don't feel like you came from a monkey?

The ladle is big with this one

5 pager inbound...over

I hope it is enlightening on both sides

How about this. What an incredible find. Almost perfectly preserved dinosaur, scales and all. Perfect Dinosaur

That things gotta push 3,900 or 3,950 years ago

That is probably in the same file that said Hillary would win the presidency by a landslide.

If it could fly it would look like one of The Game of Thrones dragons.

Prolly just an enlarged photo of a petrified horny toad.

There's a map, easily accessed via Google. It shows the human geneome track and how it spread through the planet. Since DNA is now a trackable thing, it really does solve the spread of humanity on the planet. It also makes perfect sense, if you look at it.

I'll believe evolution when one of the proponents gets on CNN and states that there are distinct differences between the races(breeds) of humans. Until then, I'm with the creationist camp.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Do you "believe" in DNA? It's real or it ain't. Folks have been executed for crimes based on it. That's some seriously messed up fairy tails if it isn't true.

Todd,

We are obviously not in agreement on this particular issue of evolution...which is fine. But I do have a serious question for you (or others):

Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species


Reproduction between different species within the same genus and even within the same family is possible. We all know that dogs can breed with other canine kinds within the family, same with cats, cattle, horses, etc... But can two DIFFERENT kinds reproduce?

Mammals for example. Can an elephant reproduce with some non elephant kind? Can a cat reproduce with a canine? Cow and a horse?

Repeat with every other family group of vertebrates and invertebrates. Can a python reproduce with an iguana? How about with a catfish? Can a crawfish mate with a mussel?

Wild examples I know, but I listed this on purpose. Y'all correct me if I'm inaccurate or way wrong. But there has never been any evidence in nature that members of different Family classifications can reproduce. Correct? All of our modern science has said that this is not possible. Correct?

So how is it that evolution theory proposes just such leaps for ages past? Mutations somehow managed to do all of this with such complexity?

Why is it that a gathering of 2 of every kind of animal (kind meaning family or genus) that would then populate the earth is seen as a fairy tale by so many?

Observable and testable evidence shows what and predicts what? It shows exactly what we know...only members of the same kind up to the family level are even compatible to reproduce...and design generally keeps that restrained to the genus level...and design even further keeps that typically to a species level.

Curious about y'alls thoughts.

Of course I trust DNA. I just like being difficult sometimes.

things need to speed up, with our ever-increasing mobility and our reliability on fossil fuels, we need babies to start being born with wings so we can save our planet from global warming. .cough,cough..excuse me, climate change

Let's start with this.....From my understanding, the way evolution occurs is not really by animals slowly morphing into something different but rather by each species throwing out a few individuals that are different than the group and natural selection favoring those few individuals. When environmental conditions change, then the animals in the group that are best suited to handle that change survive and pass on their genes. For example, it’s like if a species of bird all have short beaks except for a few anomalies with long beaks. Let’s say there’s some type of environmental event that leaves the flock in a condition where only the birds with long beaks are able to reach food….they live while the others perish. That's natural selection and how species change over time.

Is this your understanding of it too?

Here’s where I’m eventually going Straycat……..

I think man has changed over time through the same process. Early prehistoric man changed because of environmental conditions and natural selection like all the other animals would have. We were tied to nature as much as any of them back then. Let’s look at human tools and technology though to see where things changed.

We can without a doubt look at the human race and see that we are progressing over time and expanding our knowledge of technology and the world around us. We can follow it back in time as well moving back step by step along a timeline. You would have milestones on that timeline from recent ones like man learning to fly……moving back in time to ones like man learning to use metals……man learning to farm…..man inventing the wheel…..and on and on backwards in time.

If we keep following that timeline backwards then it has to lead us to one place……And that’s to the first pre-historic ancestor of man that picked up a stick and rock and used it as a tool. That separation in evolution took place in the brain. It’s where we separated ourselves from the other animals through “knowledge” as it says in Genesis. It’s what has driven our evolution as a species ever since.

Thoughts?

There has never been a mutation observed where information was added to the genetic code, it's ALWAYS as loss of information hence a MUTATION of the original. This is totally in conflict with evolution. This is something that can be observed but is totally ignored and the mutations are always put forth as a progression of sorts...they know it's a lie because it is observable.

Yes, but that is not evolution as taught in our schools today. That is simply adaption where a species best adapts to it's environment through the process that you have laid out. This is also referred to as micro evolution. This is often used as a straw-man argument that say "since we see changes within a species evolution between species must be true".

I understand what you are saying and on the surface it seems potentially possible. But if you look deeper it really starts to unravel quickly. You must understand that evolutionary theory is all about the "tree"...organisms slow developing into new and different organisms over long ages, spreading like a family does (visually)...this is all about how one gob of cells turned into something more advance, then all kinds of splits and eventually to us right now...the human is as advanced evolutionary wise as today's tiger or chimp or lobster. This is how evolution works under the widely praised and accepted common descent theory/ aka self titled "fact".

Animals species gradually changing due to environmental factors and some gene mutations within their own species is not "common descent macro evolution" which is what is the mainstream evolutionary thought. That is more micro in nature, adaptation, variation, etc... I have no problems with this because it can be actually studied, observed and tested.

When we stretch out to broad brush these series of slow changes to turn into completely new Family groups that never existed before...then there is no objective real evidence to support it at all. There is subjective evidence, manipulated evidence, wishful thinking evidence, and simple "it just has to be so it is" evidence. Where is the real evidence of all this morphing and changing other that intellectual theory and flow charts? It just doesn't exist.

Prehistoric mankind...was some less advanced version of ourselves...not human like we are and descendended form chimps or apes which descended from some other creatue and so on? Poof...some factors and variables and a huge amount of years later here we is!! Where is the proof or evidence of this happening?

Historical science cannot be observed, tested or repeated, only the cold dead evidences in the ground normally. No one was there to view the life, and what went down. So from a few skulls, a leg bone here and there, maybe a tooth---this field of science writes an entire origins narrative on how man came into existence??? Really? These skull differences...why aren't they just adaptation and variation? How do the scientists know from a few dried bones what those remains represented: looks, thoughts, communication, emotions, work, community?? They don't, so they guess.

Now sure, all animal kinds including humans share certain traits to some degree. Mammals have many commonalities...that's what they are in the mammal classification. Just because we have hair, digits, teeth, walk upright, have faces, and poop our of our buts...that doesn't mean we are in the lineage of chimps or apes.

The bottom line on my thoughts are that this is all just theory from the evolutionary viewpoint. The scientists kind of own their little world so they all agree that it is basically fact. So that gets sent to the textbooks...then to the media...then to the students...ad eventually you have this overwhelming force that is anti-creationism.

Interesting re: Africa based

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

Another really funny article on this. A jaw from Greece and atooth from Bulgaria found in some dig has now potentially altered everything known about the origins of humans. They even went so far as to say man descended directly from these early hominids....had artists draw up a face too. Hilarious.

Hold up a minute now. I think I made a very good point and you’re just quickly dismissing it with two sentences. Before we start digging deeper…...let’s hash out the things that we can see to be true with our own eyes. On the topic of tools and technology…… Do you or do you not think we can trace the evolution of knowledge back to that one point in time like I explained?

We didn’t just come out of the gate knowing how to rub sticks together and make fire. All of that is on a timeline. One that has to lead us back to the beginning of modern man….No? I’m guessing that the first ancestor of modern man to pick up a stick and use it as a tool was not nearly as advanced as today’s human. Isn’t it likely he was more like an animal than a man at that point? How can you explain this progression of knowledge that we can see today if it doesn’t lead back to extremely primitive beginnings?

A good point can still be false in reality. That's all I'm saying.

Intelligence and tools are two different things.

As a believer of God creating us in his image, I figure He endowed the first family with certain knowledge. so yes, right out of the gate they were able to survive and thrive even enduring the hardships.

Think how smart our men of antiquity were to figure out how to make iron tools, aqaducts and later build pyramids and the coliseum and so on without modern tools and electronics.

Their wooden shovels and hoes keep breaking...so they find this ore and heat it and shape it and treat it for implements. On their own. The architecture and engineering feats rival most anything today if you consider they did it without computers or modern tools.

No it isn't likely man was more animal. Probably much more skilled in hunting, trapping and fighting than we are today. I completely reject that notion of some apeish/animal being our predecessors.

When I read the first paragraphs of Genesis….I don’t see where the Big Bang Theory and Evolution conflict so badly with what the Bible says.. Look what it tells us ……

In the beginning there was formless darkness until God said let there be light……Boom!, the light….the big bang……..Then he separated the light from the darkness...we start getting day and night…...oceans and land begin to arise……..vegetation begins to cover the Earth……All of this unfolding right in line with the idea of things starting from a Big Bang of light and progressing or forming from that point….It even says next that he created the creatures in the water first before then letting the land fill with every creature of their kind…..That seems to me to be exactly what evolution is telling us as well…..life started in the ocean before the land……Then after the other animals were already here…..”Man” arrives on the scene…..This is where we split and became more than just another animal through “knowledge” and the special evolutionary path of our brains. .

To say that God created man does not have to mean that poof he made man like pulling a rabbit out of a hat….Man could have very well emerged from the blue print that was already unfolding on Earth and he still would have been made by God….. Maybe the whole blueprint of our existence from beginning to end was already written at the moment he said let there be light…… Maybe God’s hand just set it all in motion and his design created it all in a chain reaction of events that unfolded over millions of years and is still unfolding today. You can look at nature and see that there’s a blueprint. I don’t see where the ideas of evolution and the big bang have to conflict so bad with religion.

Back to you........

This is kinda where my head is at

The evolution of man explained in the best ever way possible. All of you can relate in some form or other. Those of you that can't you will soon. The evolution of man is based on the wants and needs of women. That's all there is you need to know. Women run the world and we make it happen for them. I would also say that this pertains to all life on earth.

CNC,

If you are going to use Genesis, then use it all. Don't cherry pick what fits best with your ideas and ignore the rest.

Gen 1:day 5 creatures of the seas and birds created.
Gen 1: day 6 all the creatures of the dry land, plus the specific creation of man and woman in "our" image, being the trinity.

The bible is very specific in time: day and evening mark a day. The Hebrew word is "yom" which means day. Now day has various meanings. A specific period of time as in 24 hours; an era like "back in the day"; or future tense as in "one day...". Yom when used with references to light and dark/morning and evening/or a number in the Hebrew language ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION refers to a literal 24 hour period--an actual day.

So is Genesis literal or figurative? If it is merely figurative then one can make all kinds of evolution claims within intelligent design parameters.

But even that causes a theological problem, if one cares about theology: What God, Jesus Christ actually, created was glorious and perfect. Then sin entered in Eden and man fell and suffered the curse of God. From the beginning, Christ was to pay the atoning sacrifice. If millions of years had transpired before and man arose not from God's breath but thru mutations in ape creatures...death already firmly in place....then the need for Jesus Christ and his death on the cross vanishes. How do you account for that hurdle?

Your turn.

Who is credited author of Genesis? Moses?

(Honest question)

A man and the bible has been translated and passed from one hand to the next like any other story. Religion and the way it's delivered changes to suit needs. Now do I fear God? Yes. Do I believe all of the stories/tales/fables? The jury is still out.

Also I thought this discussion was not meant to go biblical. So much for that

Yes, Moses is considered the person that God used to write what He intended to give His chosen people, Israel according to Nehemiah 8:1.

Jesus confirms the authority of all the old testament in multiple places and specifically Moses as the "writer" of the Law of Moses (first 5 books).

Beer Belly,

Sorry about this turning into a discussion that includes God and the Bible. I know you asked for that not to happen. Almost impossible to discuss evolution without also talking about God and creation. But so far it has been a good discussion of various viewpoints.