Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
All I know is that to assert humans aren't descended from Neanderthals is to bring the notion of "common descent" into question. No?
"All I know is that to assert humans aren't descended from Neanderthals is to bring the notion of "common descent" into question. No?"
All I know is that you do not understand English. Please retire from posting until you have corrected that deficiency in your education.
Elsie, Elsie, Elsie [shaking head]
No good EVER comes from being the spelling cop (I should know, I tried it a couple of times].
See your post 347 on this thread.
Exercize ain't in the dictionary.
Are humans descended from Neanderthals or not?
Are you related to your sister or brother?
If these pathways are open to discovery by intelligence, then it is question-begging to rule out a role for intelligence in the origins of life.
A lot of evolutionists have not read "Origin of Species," because it has no more than historical value.
Sure. At what point is any tracing our lineage going to bring Neanderthals into the relationship?
Not.
http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
No. I am simply taking the common sense approach. One cannot be descended from someone born after you, although, you can be related to that person.
That's very nice and I'm really happy for them, but the claim was that pal'gy and geo'gy led to ToE. You'd have thought that ToE would have been invented, then, by a geologist or pal'gist. But instead we have a trained religionist, an amateur scientist at best, who took a sea cruise and then drew selectively on the work of some non-evolutionst geolgist and paleontologist friends of his -- amongst other fields -- that really led to ToE. And even then he admitted these fields didn't "yet" support his theory as well as they hopefully would in the future.
I don't think that really makes your case.
The original claim was that you can't study rocks without believing in ToE. First, ToE operates on life, and geology is not the study of life, but of the earth. Maybe you mean you can't be a YEC and a geologist?
But back to paleo, as we have seen paleontology existed without ToE, and did not lead in some inevitable manner to ToE, and yes, you can still study fossils without believing that all those abruptly appearing fossils which are staggeringly similar across the "ages" evolved.
I do think you could argue that evolutionists are much more motivated to enter the field of paleontology to try to find those missing fossils Darwin hoped to find than, say, a creationist would be, so that might explain the case of the "missing creationist paleontologists".
Okay. So then "common descent" does not apply to the relationship between humans and Neanderthals, right?
I thought that was the Byrds through Pete Seeger :)
I don't honestly know. I suspect it would be possible to trace the human lineage without ever referring to Neanderthals, just as it is possible for you to trace your lineage without reference to your cousins.
No link at all between soul and body?
Common descent means having a common ancestor. Humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor.
This has been explained to you; what is the objection you have to this term?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.