Human evolution - recent news

[Cypress]

While I appreciate the efforts of conservative’s Creation Science Museum making case that humans were created independently of biological evolution and frolicked with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden, the following conceptual illustration of human evolution makes more sense to me.

Recent advances in science:

-Denisovan genes: In addition to recent findings that non-African humans having a few percent Neanderthal DNA genes, there appears to also be evidence that early homo-sapiens also inter-bred with Denisova hominins - some modern humans might have Denisovan genes.

-Our closest primate relative, the bonobo: Our closest living relatives may be the bonobo…not the chimpanzee.
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-bonobo...or-humans.html

[Bigdog]

Rev. Al and Rev. Barber must be shitting bricks.

[Cypress]

Rev. Al and Rev. Barber must be shitting bricks.

I have no idea what your point is.

The case can easily be made that Republicans, and in particular conservatives, are more likely to be hostile to the science of evolution than others. Quite a few religions/denominations have come to terms with evolution, even if Republicans and conservative religions have not.

Religious Views on Evolution

Buddhism
Many Buddhists see no inherent conflict between their religious teachings and evolutionary theory.

Catholicism
The Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of all life. However, this acceptance comes with the understanding that natural selection is a God-directed mechanism of biological development and that man’s soul is the divine creation of God.

United Methodist Church
In 2008, the church’s highest legislative body passed a resolution saying that “science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with [the church’s] theology.”

Southern Baptist Convention
In 1982, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a resolution rejecting the theory of evolution and stating that creation science “can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts.”

United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ finds evolutionary theory and Christian faith to be compatible, embracing evolution as a means “to see our faith in a new way.”

Judaism
While all of the major movements of American Judaism – including the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox branches – teach that God is the creator of the universe and all life, Jewish teachings generally do not find an inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and faith.

Islam
While the Koran teaches that Allah created human beings as they appear today, Islamic scholars and followers are divided on the theory of evolution. Theologically conservative Muslims who ascribe to literal interpretations of the Koran generally denounce the evolutionary argument for natural selection, whereas many theologically liberal Muslims believe that while man is divinely created, evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Islamic principles.

The Eastern Orthodox Church
Is divided in two large categories, which might be labeled as compatibilism and dualism. On the one hand, compatibilists hold that evolutionary science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. On the other hand, dualists hold that evolution can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that evolutionary science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them.

https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/...-on-evolution/

Republicans
Large numbers of Republicans do not believe in evolution.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...w-its-changed/

[Bigdog]

I have no idea what your point is.

The case can easily be made that Republicans, and in particular conservatives, are more likely to be hostile to the science of evolution than others. Quite a few religions/denominations have come to terms with evolution, even if Republicans and conservative religions have not.

Like most rich white liberal socialists, you have a racist bigoted hatred for whites living in poverty.

Both Latino and Black American populations, each have higher percentages of Christians than Whites. The belief in creationism doesn't vary that much by race or skin color.

[CharacterAssassin]

Like most rich white liberal socialists, you have a racist bigoted hatred for whites living in poverty.

Both Latino and Black American populations, each have higher percentages of Christians than Whites. The belief in creationism doesn't vary that much by race or skin color.

Why do you hate us white people? What did we ever do to you to make you so rabidly jealous of us?

[Guno צְבִי]

Like most rich white liberal socialists, you have a racist bigoted hatred for whites living in poverty.

Both Latino and Black American populations, each have higher percentages of Christians than Whites. The belief in creationism doesn't vary that much by race or skin color.

the rightwing crackas Christianity is a virulent disease

[ThatOwlWoman]

I have no idea what your point is.

The case can easily be made that Republicans, and in particular conservatives, are more likely to be hostile to the science of evolution than others. Quite a few religions/denominations have come to terms with evolution, even if Republicans and conservative religions have not.

How interesting that conservative Xtians and conservative Muslims agree as both reject science in favor of their mythology.

[Cypress]

How interesting that conservative Xtians and conservative Muslims agree as both reject science in favor of their mythology.

Rightwing Christian jihadists and fundamentalist Muslim taliban have a remarkable amount in common when it comes to science, evolution, abortion, women's rights, capital punishment. They are soul mates when you really think about it.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Rightwing Christian jihadists and fundamentalist Muslim taliban have a remarkable amount in common when it comes to science, evolution, abortion, women's rights, capital punishment. They are soul mates when you really think about it.

Yep. You can add to that "Both become enraged at being compared to that other, inferior, religion." lol

[Ralph]

I have no idea what your point is.

The case can easily be made that Republicans, and in particular conservatives, are more likely to be hostile to the science of evolution than others. Quite a few religions/denominations have come to terms with evolution, even if Republicans and conservative religions have not.

The false premise? The attempt to convolute Vertical and Horizonal "evolution"......Macro and Micro evolution. And the attempt to convolute Objective Science..i.e., real science with Subjective theory..i.e., mental projection void of any objectively reproducible and consistent evidences of fact...better known as the Scientific Method.

Evolution as defined by the Darwinian Cultist is a theory......its not a FACT of any kind of Science. Notice the language used in even attempting to argue via using this TROLLING/PSEUDO science.

List the subjective BS langue qualifiers. The use of THEORY...and admission there is no FACTUAL evidence of Evolution. Now the language qualifiers...all SUBJECTIVE none OBJECTIVE. "SEE NO" "Generally Accepts" "Quite a few" (how many is quite a few? That's real objective documentation) "MORE LIKELY" "CAN EASILY BE"

The point and conclusion? Someone attempting to project the pseudo science of THEORY as Science that deals in facts as backed via the Scientific Method of demonstrating FACTS via Objective, Reproducible, Consistent EXPERIMENTS.

Anyone....just to make a point and distinguish between the 2 methods....one valid the other pseudo. Present the experiment where LIFE has ever been reproduced from non living organic matter.....Present the experiment that demonstrates that any living creature has ever Vertically/Macro evolved from one species into another.....in fact every time an experiment has been attempted to demonstrate that LIFE can evolve from dead matter.....the experiment has never confirmed such a theory...IT HAS REJECTED IT...THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT in the attempt to reproduce LIFE from dead matter.

Now.....anyone? Show us the experimentation results that has SCIENCE.....using the scientific method.....rejecting CREATION. Go ahead....show us a single experiment that proves that CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE like Science disproves that Spontaneous Generation is impossible......Science has been used to prove (just like the Bible states) that LIFE can only be reproduced from existing LIFE within in the same and unique species. See: Pasteur

Darwin's claim? Even though there is no evidence of Abiogenesis......LIFE MUST HAVE came from non living matter. Today the cultists ALWAYS demand that the base foundation of EVOLUTION (abiogenesis)….be ignored, then proceed to claim that EVOLUTION has taken place. Indeed...evolution is a fact of science....evolution within species better known as horizontal evolution, just as the Bible states. Each creature was given a unique DNA signature that allowed each created species to adapt to its physical surroundings. But no kind of life ever evolved into a totally new and unique creature....

A fish(cold blooded) creature has never EVOLVED into a Mammal (warm blooded) creature....as suggested by evolutionists. There is not one example of any creature caught in between species change i.e., Transitional(i.e., the supposed missing link) in the fossil record. The pseudo types will find an example of something DEFORMED at birth in the fossil record and attempt to claim....that is the missing link. Would not there be millions and millions of fossils that demonstrate EVOLUTION in a state of transition...if evolution were the NORM?

Thats much like (much like...more subjectivelty) claiming the different stages of MAN......they show pictures from human skeletons found in fossilized states in caves or other isolated places.....and say "LOOK" at the way the skull is enlarged...etc.. While they ignore the evidences of what happens when a group of humans are isolated from others.....and inbreeding takes place. Take a look at the results of inbreeding over extended generations...you get, huge skulls and other types of deformities, that they psuedos claim is an example of an evolutionary stage. LMAO

There has been example after example of HOAXS throughout the decades.

[Cypress]

The false premise? The attempt to convolute Vertical and Horizonal "evolution"......Macro and Micro evolution. And the attempt to convolute Objective Science..i.e., real science with Subjective theory..i.e., mental projection void of any objectively reproducible and consistent evidences of fact...better known as the Scientific Method.

Evolution as defined by the Darwinian Cultist is a theory......its not a FACT of any kind of Science. Notice the language used in even attempting to argue via using this TROLLING/PSEUDO science.

List the subjective BS langue qualifiers. The use of THEORY...and admission there is no FACTUAL evidence of Evolution. Now the language qualifiers...all SUBJECTIVE none OBJECTIVE. "SEE NO" "Generally Accepts" "Quite a few" (how many is quite a few? That's real objective documentation) "MORE LIKELY" "CAN EASILY BE"

The point and conclusion? Someone attempting to project the pseudo science of THEORY as Science that deals in facts as backed via the Scientific Method of demonstrating FACTS via Objective, Reproducible, Consistent EXPERIMENTS.

Anyone....just to make a point and distinguish between the 2 methods....one valid the other pseudo. Present the experiment where LIFE has ever been reproduced from non living organic matter.....Present the experiment that demonstrates that any living creature has ever Vertically/Macro evolved from one species into another.....in fact every time an experiment has been attempted to demonstrate that LIFE can evolve from dead matter.....the experiment has never confirmed such a theory...IT HAS REJECTED IT...THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT in the attempt to reproduce LIFE from dead matter.

Now.....anyone? Show us the experimentation results that has SCIENCE.....using the scientific method.....rejecting CREATION. Go ahead....show us a single experiment that proves that CREATION IS IMPOSSIBLE like Science disproves that Spontaneous Generation is impossible......Science has been used to prove (just like the Bible states) that LIFE can only be reproduced from existing LIFE within in the same and unique species. See: Pasteur

Darwin's claim? Even though there is no evidence of Abiogenesis......LIFE MUST HAVE came from non living matter. Today the cultists ALWAYS demand that the base foundation of EVOLUTION (abiogenesis)….be ignored, then proceed to claim that EVOLUTION has taken place. Indeed...evolution is a fact of science....evolution within species better known as horizontal evolution, just as the Bible states. Each creature was given a unique DNA signature that allowed each created species to adapt to its physical surroundings. But no kind of life ever evolved into a totally new and unique creature....

A fish(cold blooded) creature has never EVOLVED into a Mammal (warm blooded) creature....as suggested by evolutionists. There is not one example of any creature caught in between species change i.e., Transitional(i.e., the supposed missing link) in the fossil record. The pseudo types will find an example of something DEFORMED at birth in the fossil record and attempt to claim....that is the missing link. Would not there be millions and millions of fossils that demonstrate EVOLUTION in a state of transition...if evolution were the NORM?

Thats much like (much like...more subjectivelty) claiming the different stages of MAN......they show pictures from human skeletons found in fossilized states in caves or other isolated places.....and say "LOOK" at the way the skull is enlarged...etc.. While they ignore the evidences of what happens when a group of humans are isolated from others.....and inbreeding takes place. Take a look at the results of inbreeding over extended generations...you get, huge skulls and other types of deformities, that they psuedos claim is an example of an evolutionary stage. LMAO

There has been example after example of HOAXS throughout the decades.

If you think the theory of evolution and Charles Darwin are frauds, you have a lot of company and soul mates in conservatism and the Republican Party.
You American conservatives are the only major political party on the planet I know whose memebers routinely denies evolution, and clings to a young earth creationist fantasy.

The bolded part of your post is patently false and incorrect.

"A fish(cold blooded) creature has never EVOLVED into a Mammal (warm blooded) creature....as suggested by evolutionists. There is not one example of any creature caught in between species change i.e., Transitional(i.e., the supposed missing link) in the fossil record."

Transitional Fossil reveals transitional link from fish to four-legged tetrapods
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9b2_story.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0113154211.htm

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
Tiktaalik, of course. Pronounced tik-TAA-lik, this 375 million year old fossil splashed across headlines as soon as its discovery was announced in April of 2006. Unearthed in Arctic Canada by a team of researchers led by Neil Shubin, Edward Daeschler, and Farish Jenkins, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills — but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes', but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do. Those fins and a suite of other characteristics set Tiktaalik apart as something special; it has a combination of features that show the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their descendents, the four-legged vertebrates — a clade which includes amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and of course, humans.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...0501_tiktaalik

[Guno צְבִי]

Rev. Al and Rev. Barber must be shitting bricks.

nope , you don't know Rev Barber do you? He is not a fundy kook

[Mott the Hoople]

Rev. Al and Rev. Barber must be shitting bricks.

What would you know or care? This is a topic far, far, far over your head.

[Bigdog]

What would you know or care? This is a topic far, far, far over your head.

So you hate Black Christian conservatives, too.

I'm not surprised.

[Mason Melchizedek]

So you hate Black Christian conservatives, too.

I'm not surprised.

No such thing