No, there is no evidence to suggest humans and neanderthals ever bred... Some believe they may have been able to procreate, however there is no evidence to suggest that is true or not...
What part of putting a human in a car diagonally do you not understand? people that aren't frozen solid would bend - they couldn't bend her.. When you're frozen to the point of no dexterity, then there is an issue... But hey, you just love to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing argue...
"When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool." I guess you don't think DNA evidence is proof?
DNA has never linked humans to Neanderthals... Furthermore humans migrated out of Africa a lot longer than 60,000 years ago - try 200,000+ years ago.
No credible alternative scientific theory exists. :. The theory of evolution does not predict nor should it be reasonably expected that all gaps will be filled. History is imperfectly preserved. It does predict that gaps will be filled over time, that as we gather new information they will fit the missing pieces of puzzle. Not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. All the evidence we do have still fits exquisitely into an evolutionary pattern. Claiming that I ignore the scientific method? That the science community thinks it knows everything or that scientists fear being wrong? Those are the type of comments science illiterates are known to make.. Does it matter if Darwin wasn't comfortable with his theory? True or not; No… it doesn't matter. You think evolution is not settled science? In science, theory is not equated with speculation. Established theories are made of hypotheses and deductions drawn from those hypotheses that are strongly supported by empirical evidence. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred..
Like I said, these "intellectuals" already have a conclusion/"theory" and now they have to find the evidence to support it and all evidence that doesn't support the theory is REJECTED....
They reject anything that’s bogus. Like “I” said; In science, theory is not equated with speculation. Established theories are made of hypotheses and deductions drawn from those hypotheses that are strongly supported by empirical evidence. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred. Believe whatever you like; scientists aren’t going to lose sleep over it.
My theory on this intelligence having a place in evolution lies in the microbial life that lives in us and on us. I believe the answers will come from them. - - - Updated - - - Of course they have linked humans to Neanderthals in our DNA.
Their theories ARE speculation... I have a major issue when physical evidence is rejected because it doesn't fit their theories er speculations... I'm just not talking about evolution but just about everything... Do you have any idea how many scientists disagree with these intellectual fools that pretend they're the ones that control knowledge? There are so many geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists etc that find artifacts and fossils that totally contradict many ideas, yet these objects are brushed off as anomalies because these objects don't fit the intellectuals theories... Go look up out of place objects...
They have also linked bananas, monkeys, birds and just about anything that has ever lived weather plant or animal... All living creatures share DNA because DNA is nothing more than proteins...
ehh...I don't see it. evolution is due to RANDOM variations, that get chosen by survival and sexual choice. so yes, more advantageous variations expand, in a purely survival-based environment. we can call this a "smart" choice, but the choice isn't made by evolution, but the animals themselves.
The thing is, that may not be necessarily so. And more and more scientists are beginning to question it, as science moves forward, at the pace of tombstones. The philosophical materialism that lies at the foundation of neo Darwinism might be incapable of explaining accurately evolution. This is not to say evolution is wrong, but that what we understand of it, may very well be wrong, in its totality. NOW, to dispute this is dogmatic, relying upon dogma. And science should never do that, but remain open minded, and because of materialism, this has not been the case until the last few decades.
The reason why everything is linked by DNA is that we all had a common ancestor. What lynnlynn was saying is that science, using DNA evidence, has shown that cro-magnon and neanderthal did interbreed. Also, DNA is not a protein, it is a nucleic acid. You should really read some science books or you are at risk of looking extremely ignorant.
You are absolutely right, science is built on materialism. That's the whole point of science, to look for materialistic reasons for why things are the way they are. If you add non-materialistic theories, then it is not science. If you don't like that, fine, but if you find yourself having a heart attack, are you going to just pray to get better, use a magic spell or crystals or are you going to want a doctor, trained in materialistic science to help you? Heck, if materialism is so bad, why are you using a computer and the Internet? You should be living with the Amish, at least they are not hypocrites to their beliefs.
It's more of a mind of the universe type of thing - that probably came about as a result of natural processes anyway. It does give hope for the "supernatural", but none for the man in the sky theories.
But maybe the aliens who genetically modified apes to create humans took a DNA sample from their prime specimen, Adam, to clone Eve, leaving an incision scar on the abdomen that created the rib legend. It's not science, but I can believe it if I want to. Life is more fun that way.
I'm thinking that Lilith was an actual alien and Adam was Neanderthal. The reason they had to ditch Lilith in favor of Eve was that she liked to be on top too much and the kids were freakin' ugly monstrosities with arms way too long and little tiny peckers. After tweaking the DNA to make Eve they fixed the genetic anomalies and made Cane and Able...who then further impregnated Eve to make the rest of us.
I know what (*)(*)(*)(*)ing DNA is, I didn't feel the need to take DNA to the micro level, I thought protein was sufficient enough.. Also, you do realize DNA cant explain your theory of evolution? There are no examples of evolution, there are examples of adaptation but not evolution.. Evolution is straight up speculation.. Do you question anything if it doesn't come out of the right piehole?
I think that is very possible... It's the only way to really explain how humans just basically appeared out of no where... I don't buy the whole "humans are evolved ape" nonsense..
But adaption IS evolution. Evolution is just adaption over a long period of time. A fish species adapts to breathing air to survive in a low oxygen pond. It then adapts its fins to allow it to travel between ponds. It adapts its scales to become water tight to survive outside of water and pretty soon it is now a reptile. While evolution is not perfect, there is no other theory that can come close to replacing it, if one does, I will investigate it and make my decision based on its merit. I question EVERYTHING until I have learned enough about it to make a decision.
We are soooo different from the other animals, with whom we clearly nevertheless share a common ancestor. Our ancient writings speak of the gods coming from the sky. I find it hard to believe that they all just made that up out of thin air, though it is possible.
That’s nothing but your uneducated opinion. Theory does not mean speculation, hypothesis, unsupported, vague idea, or something that is particularly doubtful. Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution, that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. All of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Evolution has been tested and scrutinized for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations. As a process it can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence. Out-of-place “artifacts” have never stood up to any scrutiny. The testable examples, like the Antikythera Mechanism, have proven to fit into our historical understanding and in the best cases, to improve it. The rest have all turned out to be nonexistent fairy tales (like the Dropa Stones), sensationalized reporting of ordinary objects (like the Coso Artifact), or anything that fits into the historical rewriting agendas of Young Earthers, UFO proponents, or any other group that casts science aside in favor of ideology.
Evolution is based on the evidence, unlike your religious proclamations. The genetic evidence is probably our best evidence, although it's definitely close to morphology and the geographic distribution of species, which were what Darwin had available and were by themselves sufficient, in conjunction with the observed and predictable changing of traits in lifeforms according to reproduction criteria, to inspire him and other scientists of the time to develop and accept the theory of evolution by natural selection. Genetics help us understand in detail how life grows and develops as it does, and obviously helps us to understand in detail how evolution occurs. Turning to the OP and the claims of "intelligence" associated with it, it recalls a thought that occurred to me some time back - namely, that life has evolved to evolve. It's been around so long and survived so many mass extinction events and other such hardships that to my mind, it's possible that life has developed in such a way that it can respond to environmental changes in a way that might be described as "intelligent," and I think that's what this article, which is also an opinion piece and not some great change to evolutionary science taking place all of a sudden, is telling us. Watson asks, "... can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes?" He goes on to say: "Learning theory enables us to formalise how evolution changes its own processes over evolutionary time. For example, by evolving the organisation of development that controls variation, the organisation of ecological interactions that control selection or the structure of reproductive relationships that control inheritance natural selection can change its own ability to evolve." This is a proposed theory of life having some control over how it responds to environmental changes, over how it responds and changes. There is nothing here to support any creationist or intelligent design dogma, positions that stem from a religious desire to have been divinely created by their god of choice, so that they can maintain their belief systems. This is about another way that life may be adaptable and able to evolve, a new dimension to evolution that might have been missed previously. - - - Updated - - - Except we didn't appear out of nowhere. Too bad you choose not to accept the more than adequate evidence that modern humans have primitive ancestors. The total lack of modern human fossils millions of years ago, where many upright-walking primates occur instead, should be an indication to you.
