Neanderthal Remains Found in North America?

[knife river]

Originally Posted by adamckee

Evolutionist start from the presupposition that there is no intelligent designer, this is a bias, and muddies the waters of scientific study as would any bias.

Have to respectfully disagree. No presuppositions, no bias. Just evidence.

On the other hand, it seems creationists begin with the assumption that there is an intelligent designer and apply pretzel-logic to support it.

[uniface]

An Interview with: Virginia Steen-McIntyre (of the Valsequillo Site in Mexico), FMES , Idaho Springs, Colorado

WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?

Nothing with science per se. It is a method used for looking at a small part of reality, mainly the physical universe. The problem arises when people, both scientists and the general public, try to make it something it is not -- a world view, for example.

BUT YOU OFTEN HEAR OF "THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW"

A contradiction in terms. Science deals with measuring and manipulating concrete facts. A world view looks at those facts from a certain perspective. ALL world views are taken on faith, even supposedly scientific ones.

SUCH AS?

Such as the one that claims the physical universe we know is all there is, and that it developed by chance over time.

IS THAT SUCH A BAD THEORY?

Not if we remember it is only one theory or philosophy, or religion or world view among many equally as valid. The danger arises when it becomes THE ONLY theory. Then it is only a matter of time until it is crammed down our throats as FACT.

When that happens, good-by free enquiry.

DO YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING IN WESTERN CULTURE?

Look around you. When was the last time you heard that particular theory seriously questioned by the scientific media?

BUT AGAIN, IS THAT BAD IF IT'S THE CORRECT WORLD VIEW?

Do you mean politically correct? It obviously is that, but that would make me question it more than ever!

WHY??

Look at history.. Since when has any government, even the best, remained faithful to the ideal of the welfare of the common man?

WHY WOULD GOVERNMENTS BE SO INTERESTED IN THIS PARTICULAR WORLD VIEW?

Because it's interwoven with the Theory of Evolution: accept one, you have to accept the other.

AND IS "SOMETHING WRONG" WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

Not if you realize it is JUST a theory, and a shaky one at that.

But think for a moment. Every major despot and would-be dictator since Darwin has loved that theory -- Marx, Hitler, Mao. It gives them such freedom to kill off those they don't like.

After all, when the Theory of Evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, the only moral imperative demanded is "survival of the fittest".

SO YOU DON'T LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?

No, I don't like it, for scientific reasons: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics for one thing. I don't like it for philosophical and religions reasons. I especially don't like it because it helped ruin my career.

[Cluton]

Evolution is flat out a theory! No true proof, but you can also say the Bible has no proof either! It's a matter of opinion, and it has been a great discussion like always! Darwin had great ideas, but the Bible does too! If Evolution is real, then why did it stop? If Evolution occurred, then how did the Apes get here in the first place? That's the question I ask all the time, with no comments! If someone would put a theory out there that is simple to read, I would be interested! AdamM, is correct, there is and was a creator, a big bang just didn't happen that produced Apes, that eventually evolved into humans! That's a bad theory in my book! There had to have been a Creator that made what we know today! It makes better sense than any Evolution Theory I've ever heard! So, that's my take, and I'm sorry people disagree, but that's my opinion, and I'm convinced there is a Creator that had a hand in making all this amazing stuff we enjoy everyday!

[dave2757]

Originally Posted by Cluton

Evolution is flat out a theory! No true proof, but you can also say the Bible has no proof either! It's a matter of opinion, and it has been a great discussion like always! Darwin had great ideas, but the Bible does too! If Evolution is real, then why did it stop? If Evolution occurred, then how did the Apes get here in the first place? That's the question I ask all the time, with no comments! If someone would put a theory out there that is simple to read, I would be interested! AdamM, is correct, there is and was a creator, a big bang just didn't happen that produced Apes, that eventually evolved into humans! That's a bad theory in my book! There had to have been a Creator that made what we know today! It makes better sense than any Evolution Theory I've ever heard! So, that's my take, and I'm sorry people disagree, but that's my opinion, and I'm convinced there is a Creator that had a hand in making all this amazing stuff we enjoy everyday!

Evolution never stops, though (as in the case of Humans) it can reach momentary periods of stagnancy called "stasis". This usually occurs when a population is very large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)

The opposite occurs when a population experiences geographic isolation, as the smaller gene pool makes each generation more susceptible to change:

Cladogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The great apes evolved from other mammalian forms, which had themselves evolved from aquatic creatures. Evolution works like a tree, where organisms eventually split off into different species. This is called Speciation:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Farnsworth vs Dr Banjo - YouTube

[rokdok]

WOW! Been gone a few days and come back to this. Quite a discussion.

In answer as to whether i believe the original story about Neanderthal remains being found with recurve bows and "Venus" knives, No. What was my first clue? California. No offense to any Californians, but more bull---- comes out of there than anywhere else on earth. I came across this story while doing online research for a book i'm struggling to write, and thought it might elicit some discussion. Did it ever.The polarity in the viewpoints expressed here reminds one of the diversity of this group of members, and that though our interpretations of the same events may differ, we can still remain friends and colleagues with healthy dialogue and debate concerning our own individual opinions and beliefs. Cheers, Mark.

[uniface]

Evolution never stops, though (as in the case of Humans) it can reach momentary periods of stagnancy called "stasis". This usually occurs when a population is very large.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)

The opposite occurs when a population experiences geographic isolation, as the smaller gene pool makes each generation more susceptible to change:

Cladogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Neanderthal groups were essentially opportunistic hunters. They would get a single deer and bring it back and butcher it. They probably lived in a fairly restricted geographical area. When you get to modern population sites, the most striking thing is the overwhelming proportion of a single species of large herd animals.

"In the Near East it was wild cattle; in Eastern and Central Europe it was mammoth; in Western Europe it was reindeer. These are migratory herd animals that have regular migration routes. Large numbers of cooperating groups harvested the animals as they came through narrow valleys. This is a very different proposition than leaving a hunting camp and wandering out to find food. These guys knew that food was coming through twice a year. They could smoke it. If it was at the height of the Ice Age in France, they could freeze it.

"They got tremendous time utility out of this resource. When you start getting large groups of people, assembled for a semiannual protein harvest, they develop rules about reciprocal rights between groups which are most often defined by mating patterns. This increases gene flow between groups which accelerates biological change. It also means a tremendous amount of cooperation is necessary between groups . . ."

[joshuaream]

Originally Posted by Cluton

If Evolution is real, then why did it stop?

Natural selection is the process Darwin and others described where usually small, isolate populations change and adapt over time. The length of time usually precludes people from watching the entire process live. What we see is the output.

Unnatural selection is easiest to show and talk about. If you look up species, you'll find that there are lots of vague definitions and some working definitions that people use. I like the concept that species are two animals that cannot or do not, in their normal wild habitat breed and produce viable offspring. Scientists can make lions and tigers reproduce, but under normal circumstances they won't and the offspring are infertile. (They did overlap in many areas in historic times.)

Currently all dogs are defined as being part of the Canis lupus species, which is the species that all wolves belong to. Over thousands of years, humans have unnaturally selected wolves and breed them create traits by forcing isolation from the broad Canis lupus line. I'm not sure what would happen if you put a Chihuahua in a natural setting with a wild wolf, but I am pretty sure you wouldn't get a viable offspring. (My aunts Chihuahua was impregnated by a 20 lbs dog that hopped the fence and needed a c-section.) By the most definitions Chihuahuas shouldn't be considered the same species as a wolf, but acknowledging the change would be tantamount to creating a new species which is something creationists reserve for a higher power.

Natural selection works the same way, little changes happen, if that change is favorable (results in more food, better breeding opportunity, increased offspring survival) it gets passed on and spreads. In an isolated population those changes add up over thousands of years and the end product looks and behaves differently. The best examples are some of Darwin's own observations. A flock of birds from a continent gets blown by a storm to an offshore island. The birds find new to them species of trees and plants with different seeds. They find enough seeds to eat and survive, but most of the seeds are too hard for them to crack. Sooner or later one bird is born with a slightly thicker beak, and he can eat a couple of seeds that others can't. Some of his offspring can as well, some may even interbreed and get slightly stronger beaks, etc. Fast forward 10,000 years and you have two types of finch. One with a robust beak that cracks nuts and other thin bill that still eats seeds. Why was that bird born with a slightly thicker beak? I don't know, variation is inevitable. Some were born with a thin beak and didn't live and reproduce successfully.

[mootsman]

Regarding the "are we alone in the universe question"....i think not. And should they have already silently observed us I suggest they place us on a "check in every millennia" schedule to see if we've developed anything (intellectually/philosophically) worth a visit. Good luck. Perhaps creatures that crap in their own nest and frequently kill one another over whose God is greater don't offer much interest in the grand scheme of the universe.

Hey mods - given the length and civility of this thread why not move it to the off topic forum where it can continue and not scare away noobs

[uniface]

A flock of birds from a continent gets blown by a storm to an offshore island. The birds find new to them species of trees and plants with different seeds. They find enough seeds to eat and survive, but most of the seeds are too hard for them to crack. Sooner or later one bird is born with a slightly thicker beak, and he can eat a couple of seeds that others can't. Some of his offspring can as well, some may even interbreed and get slightly stronger beaks, etc. Fast forward 10,000 years and you have two types of finch. One with a robust beak that cracks nuts and other thin bill that still eats seeds. Why was that bird born with a slightly thicker beak? I don't know, variation is inevitable. Some were born with a thin beak and didn't live and reproduce successfully.

Meh . . .

If they all developed stronger beaks in isolation, that would seem plausible. But unless you're hypothesizing the intentional avoidance of the two beak types in mating behavior (choice), the genetic deck would be getting continually re-shuffled every breeding season, pulling the extremes back into the norm.

And, not that it matters much, but not every actual improvement results in a survival-&-reproductive advantage. Especially where humans are concerned.

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is NOT king.

He's lynched.

[knife river]

Originally Posted by uniface

Meh . . .

If they all developed stronger beaks in isolation, that would seem plausible. But unless you're hypothesizing the intentional avoidance of the two beak types in mating behavior (choice), the genetic deck would be getting continually re-shuffled every breeding season, pulling the extremes back into the norm.

And, not that it matters much, but not every actual improvement results in a survival-&-reproductive advantage. Especially where humans are concerned.

That's not what was said. If the individual(s) with larger beaks have an advantage (more breeding, more successfully fledged offspring, which are in turn outbreeding the smaller beaked birds), then the population of larger beaked birds grows -- sometimes gradually, sometimes exponentially. Doesn't matter early on if their mates have large or small beaks, just so some of the offspring exhibit that trait. In time, if it's truly an advantage, then more and more will have it.

Improvement does not equal advantage? Completely lost me there...