Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: DNA results are in: Early humans and Neanderthals made babies together

  1. #11
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    34,089
    Amen (Given)
    792
    Amen (Received)
    13870
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Where is that smiley by the fireplace? Would have gone great here as a reply.
    I save that for flirtifying

    I'm always still in trouble again

  2. #12
    tWebber JB DoulosChristou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Amish Paradise
    Faith
    Evangelical
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    156
    Amen (Given)
    358
    Amen (Received)
    92
    A while ago, I ran the results of a DNA test I had done through some analytic tools, and found a few spots of my own genetic material that reflect some partial Neanderthal ancestry. (I was missing some of the other common ones, though.) All of us have 'em here or there.

    From the original journal article, it looks like the actual news here is that, based on evaluating multiple sources of archaic DNA in Melanesian populations, the scientists have become more confident that most of our ancestral populations had multiple interbreeding events with Neanderthals, not just one. Am I reading that right?
    "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

    "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

    "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

  3. #13
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    34,089
    Amen (Given)
    792
    Amen (Received)
    13870
    Quote Originally Posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
    A while ago, I ran the results of a DNA test I had done through some analytic tools, and found a few spots of my own genetic material that reflect some partial Neanderthal ancestry. (I was missing some of the other common ones, though.) All of us have 'em here or there.

    From the original journal article, it looks like the actual news here is that, based on evaluating multiple sources of archaic DNA in Melanesian populations, the scientists have become more confident that most of our ancestral populations had multiple interbreeding events with Neanderthals, not just one. Am I reading that right?
    IIRC, about the only group that doesn't show traces of Neanderthal ancestry in some of their population are sub-Saharan Africans.

    I'm always still in trouble again

  4. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  5. #14
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,238
    Amen (Given)
    1136
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    IIRC, about the only group that doesn't show traces of Neanderthal ancestry in some of their population are sub-Saharan Africans.
    Correct!
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  6. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The following represents further research confirming earlier studies defining the relationship between homo sapiens, and other homo subspecies. The most important conclusion in this genetic research is that it confirms the modern evolution of homo sapiens, and mixing with other homo relatives as we migrated out of Africa. The Neanderthal and Denisovans DNA is missing from Africans.
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    IIRC, about the only group that doesn't show traces of Neanderthal ancestry in some of their population are sub-Saharan Africans.
    In other words:

    * Noah and his wife cannot very well have been Neanderthal or Denisovan race,
    * at same time, one daughter in law must have had some such background
    * but since other studies show that Neanderthal mitocondrial and Y-chromosome are "not modern human" ...

    I suppose Neanderthals were a pre-Flood race, and a Neanderthal woman had a son with a non-Neanderthal man (no Neanderthal Y chromosome), then the son had a daughter with a non-Neanderthal woman (no Neanderthal mitocondrial DNA) who married one of Noah's sons.

    I suppose remains of Neanderthals in stone age like surroundings, if from pre-Flood, were either a kind of camp prisoners or a kind of Amish, having to do largely in ways which proved useful later just after Flood, during "Late Palaeolithic" to "Neolithic".
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  7. #16
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,238
    Amen (Given)
    1136
    Amen (Received)
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    In other words:

    * Noah and his wife cannot very well have been Neanderthal or Denisovan race,
    * at same time, one daughter in law must have had some such background
    * but since other studies show that Neanderthal mitocondrial and Y-chromosome are "not modern human" ...

    I suppose Neanderthals were a pre-Flood race, and a Neanderthal woman had a son with a non-Neanderthal man (no Neanderthal Y chromosome), then the son had a daughter with a non-Neanderthal woman (no Neanderthal mitocondrial DNA) who married one of Noah's sons.

    I suppose remains of Neanderthals in stone age like surroundings, if from pre-Flood, were either a kind of camp prisoners or a kind of Amish, having to do largely in ways which proved useful later just after Flood, during "Late Palaeolithic" to "Neolithic".
    First, biggy problem, there is no evidence for any such flood. Your artificial time line to make things fit an ancient mythical Genesis, either unbelievable naive, or more likely, down right intellectually and deliberately dishonest.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  8. #17
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41
    Amen (Given)
    5
    Amen (Received)
    1
    False since Science is studying the evolution of the sons of God (prehistoric people) INSTEAD of Humans, who are the descendants of Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans

    Today's Evols are totally ignorant that Human blood was contaminated by the blood of the common ancestor of Apes because Noah's grandsons had NO other humans to marry. They married the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) who were ALREADY here when Noah arrived. In the past, some 10-12k years ago, Humans have been scattered over the whole face of our Planet. Gen 11:9

    Humans were formed of the dust on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Cosmos, or some 13.7 Billion years ago. Adam was made with a higher intelligence level than ANY creature whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day, because Adam had an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22

    IT is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam, the first Human, to have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes since our Earth is only 4.53 Billion years old, and Adam had been around for Billions of years before then, as our Lord' meet.

    Adam's direct descendant, Noah, arrived on our Earth, some 10k years ago and Human civilization, on this Planet, can be traced to him. History agrees and odd man out is the False ToE which is "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 of our true Human origins. You can read of the sexual compatibilty of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Adam's descendants in Genesis 6:1-4.


    God Bless

  9. #18
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    34,089
    Amen (Given)
    792
    Amen (Received)
    13870
    Quote Originally Posted by Seve View Post
    False since Science is studying the evolution of the sons of God (prehistoric people) INSTEAD of Humans, who are the descendants of Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans

    Today's Evols are totally ignorant that Human blood was contaminated by the blood of the common ancestor of Apes because Noah's grandsons had NO other humans to marry. They married the descendants of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) who were ALREADY here when Noah arrived. In the past, some 10-12k years ago, Humans have been scattered over the whole face of our Planet. Gen 11:9

    Humans were formed of the dust on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Cosmos, or some 13.7 Billion years ago. Adam was made with a higher intelligence level than ANY creature whose origin was in the water on the 5th Day, because Adam had an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22

    IT is IMPOSSIBLE for Adam, the first Human, to have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes since our Earth is only 4.53 Billion years old, and Adam had been around for Billions of years before then, as our Lord' meet.

    Adam's direct descendant, Noah, arrived on our Earth, some 10k years ago and Human civilization, on this Planet, can be traced to him. History agrees and odd man out is the False ToE which is "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 of our true Human origins. You can read of the sexual compatibilty of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Adam's descendants in Genesis 6:1-4.


    God Bless
    Last edited by rogue06; 12-14-2016 at 05:09 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

  10. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    41
    Amen (Given)
    5
    Amen (Received)
    1
    This is clear when you ask Evols to explain WHERE the first Human came from, since the only way in which Humans can pass the invisible intelligence of Adam, to another Human, is through the birthing process. Evols run, hide, call names, imply that anyone who asks this question is nuts, and claim there was no first Human and that magical evolution did it.

    NONE of them can produce ANY evidence of this event since Science is currently IGNORANT of the difference between Human and animal intelligence Today. They would have us believe that Apes evolved into Humans and that it happened 200k years ago.

    Evols also falsely CLAIM that long periods of time and numerous positive mutations produced Human intelligence in animals. No Evol refutes them because God has caught ALL of them in His Snare, which He set with the Flood. The Trap they are caught in is that they have been Falsely teaching Evolution for more than 50 years, that Humans evolved from animals, BECAUSE they have Rejected God's Truth of the Flood. Soon, they must DEFEND this Satanic Lie and the only defense they have is to be "willingly ignorant" of God's Truth. Here is God's Truth, which tells of this debate, with the Scoffers in the last days.

    2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (Greek-destroyed totally)

    Here is the origin of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day, as commanded by God some 3.77 Billion years ago, in man's time. Science AGREES that our cells cannot survive without liquid water and that’s why we seek liquid water on other planets to see if they have the possibility of life or not. We find the bones of prehistoric people all the way back to the time when they diverged from Chimps some 6 Million years ago.

    Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after Their kind, and every winged fowl after His kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Adam's direct descendant, Noah, arrived on our Earth, some 10k years ago and Human civilization, on this Planet, can be traced to him. History agrees and odd man out is the False ToE which is "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 of our true Human origins. You can read of the sexual compatibilty of the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Adam's descendants in Genesis 6:1-4.

    Prehistoric people were just like today's Humans and they moved and had their origin in water EXACTLY as Scripture and Science tell us. Science calls this appearance of life from water a "Natural" happening, but God shows that it was all a part of His Creation.

    What the posting shows is that this False Teaching of the ToE is NOT true, and supposes things which have No data to support their False Assumptions. That's because Humans are the descendants of Adam and Adam's superior intelligence MUST be inherited sexually and CANNOT happen by chance mutation and long periods of time as evolutionism falsely preaches.


  11. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    First, biggy problem, there is no evidence for any such flood. Your artificial time line to make things fit an ancient mythical Genesis, either unbelievable naive, or more likely, down right intellectually and deliberately dishonest.
    You can argue that on this thread:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...s-overwhelming!

    Meanwhile, I note you had no "second" about the genetic aspect.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •