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.
That's a theological question and I'm not a theologian.
No license to practise, eh? Sad that we have such governmental controls.
Nope. Humans, Neanderthals, and apes all have common decent. First a split occurred where the apes split off. Later on, there was another split between Humans and Neanderthals.
No. It is not clear why you would think that after all of the posts that have answered your previous questions.
Neanderthals and modern humans are related in the same sense that cousins are related - by a common ancestor.
4 indicates I'm above average! ;^)
I am descended from my mother and father.
My sister is descended from my mother and father.
My sister is not descended from me, and I am not descended from her, but we are related.
I really cannot think of simpler words to explain the concept.
Could they produce fertile descendents? If they could, then they were the same species. If they could only produce "mules," i.e. sterile descendents, then they were different, though very closely related, species.
I think they'da stayed in trees. They DIDn't disappear.
Nitpick - but that is not necessarily true. Ring species are notable examples.
Who was Adam??
Adam was of the lineage of Lucy.
Ain't guessin' fun!!!
Nobody can tell if my spellling is rite wen I talk!!!!
This looks like a chart from my dancing lesson days!
Probably one population stayed in the trees, while the other adapted to the grasslands. One population remained relatively unchanged, leading to some of the modern apes, while the other adapted and changed, leading to new species.
(This is one answer to the "why are there still apes" question.)
With respect, Elsie... Have you ever seen the African savannah on any nature program? There's a tree here & there, absolutely. But that's a far cry from the jungle areas where the modern chimpanzees live.
A closer look at your illustration is helpful in understanding the point. Thanks. The word "related" is what causes confusion. One can be descended from another, or not be descended from another, and still be "related" in either case. But there is a sense in which one can say humans and Neanderthals are "not related," namely in the sense of direct descent.
I've seen NO after the flood, and I really doubt that anyone will 'adapt' to live in what's there now; but will move to a location that is very similar to what they had before the weather change.
protoman would do the same.
That appears correct. Neither Humans nor Neanderthals descended from the other.
I am glad I was able to help you with this point.
The word "related" is relative. For example, living humans are all related by a common set of ancestors but we really only consider ourselves "related" to maybe those that are as far out as 2nd or 3rd cousins.
In the same way, scientist use the word in a relative sense when speaking informally. For example, a scientist may say that a koala bear is really a marsupial and not even related to bears. This is true in an informal way, but koalas and bears are related - just in a distant way.
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.