No it’s not. Jury is still out on the Jebel Irhoud specimens.
Yes, and yes.
Re: earliest “modern human” discovered in Morocco - Jean-Jacques Hublin was very cautious in his paper to point out that this specimen is not a “modern human” (anatomically modern human).
Interbreeding scenarios seem more complex, it appears. https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(15)00014-2
The dates of 30000 years ago for the last Neanderthal sites (Southern Spain/Gibraltar) were revised to 45000 years ago by new dating, but regardless of the actual date, it would appear that interbreeding did not take place in Europe at all - even when modern humans presumably met up with Neanderthals in Europe itself.
This paper doesn’t include the genome sequencing of ancient sapiens, neanderthals and denosivans. See David Reich’s book for a more complete update on interbreeding.
1 Like
Sure Hublin is cautious. So when do you think Homo Sapiens emerged? Where and from what previous species of human? And what genomic changes are seen?
1 Like
Interbreeding did take place in Europe. You don’t seem to be up to date on recent findings. New data is coming in at an accelerating pace. See below
Neanderthal Genes Likely Helped Homo sapiens Resist Illness | The Scientist Magazine®
This is the main problem with RTB’s model. New data is going to falsify the RTB model, if it hasn’t already.
1 Like
They are called Early Homo sapiens though.
1 Like
@SueD Are you aware of these discoveries?
Homo Sapiens Fossil Pushes Back Date of Human Migration from Africa | The Scientist Magazine®
If all this is true, that makes things pretty complicated. I was thinking maybe around the upper paleolithic is when God gave humans their distinctive spirit. But what would that mean regarding interbreeding with Neanderthals?
If no progeny were possible between Homo Sapien Sapiens, and Neanderthals, that would make things a lot simpler. Guess I need to keep thinking about this.
Perhaps thinking of the human being as an idea in the mind of God rather than a species God invested with a spirit might help. Perhaps a human being could be seen as anyone with the POTENTIAL for theosis or the potential to become like Christ, since Christ is the only true Human Being.
Denton and Chomsky make some intriguing arguments for language being a saltational evolutionary advancement, which may help to mark off “being human.” Anyone know what the current opinion is on whether Neanderthals had language?
In cases of the mentally ill, retarded, etc., they would still conform to the image (Logos) for a human being in the mind of God and so would be considered fully human, despite this Logos being damaged in some way. They are not the way they are SUPPOSED to be. Which would be different from a very very smart upper ape with the intelligence of a five yr old. The ape’s logos would not be damaged in the same way as a Downs or retarted person’s would be because the ape WOULD BE the way it is meant to be.
As for how downs, retardation, predispositions for alcoholism, etc. could be understood as part of a “fallen” condition while affirming evolution, this would take up another thread.
I am reading an excellent book where the author claims that Homo Erectus 2 million years ago had language, culture, tool making industry and the most cognitive abilities of any species that the planet has ever seen. And this language, culture expanded through many human species including Neanderthals and Sapiens. Of course, Sapiens has the most cognitive development in the past 40,000 years.
The book is
1 Like
Yes I am well aware of these discoveries. I am very interested in the work that Enard and the lab that he is working with is doing, and am following it with interest. Teeth of AMH in SE Asia are interesting and confirm an early migration date. Language: must also have been fully acquired before the migration began. I agree with Chomsky and his theory of Universal Grammar. he and David Berlinski make a good point about Alfred Russell Wallace’s question of “unopened gifts” -the high level of cognitive advance must already have been present in all humans before populations started to split away.
I am going to have to take a break from the discussion due to pressing deadlines.
5 Likes
The book above disagrees with Chomsky and his theory of Universal Grammar. Everett says that language for symbols and artifacts preceded grammar. He shows that Homo Erectus had language that was culturally based on symbols for artifacts. The evolution of language, speech, auditory processing were aligned and advanced greatly from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens and included all the Homo species including Neanderthals over a million years. Along with the evolution of language, human cognitive abilities advanced as well over these million years. Yes, Homo Sapiens are the most cognitively advance species the world has ever known, but that doesn’t diminish the slowly advancing cognitive abilities of the entire Homo Genus including H. Erectus and H. Neanderthal.
As Ken Ham would say (and countless children he taught this retort): “Were you there?”
As Kirk Cameron has explained: “Homo erectus never existed. He was nothing but an old man suffering from arthritis!”
As Georgia Purdom has emphasized: “But you are ignoring the difference between observational science and historical science!”
As Nathaniel Jeanson explains in an interview published at the Institute for Creation Research website: “I asked myself, ‘How can I use and abuse my training to influence eternity, rather than for temporary gain?’”
And as Yogi Beara said: “I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.”
[OK. I’m in a silly mood this morning. I can’t help it. I just read several mind-numbing AIG articles that defy imagination. The above quotes are indeed zany—but I didn’t make them up. These are recurrent themes among “creation science” speakers. @Greg, as a Christ-follower who cares about truth, I’m horrified at their antics.]
POSTSCRIPT:
If anyone doubts that Nathaniel Jeanson spoke of “abusing” his scientific training, you will find the aforementioned quotation at: New ICR Research Associate: Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. | The Institute for Creation Research
4 Likes
Wow. That is a real quote:
3 Likes
@Greg, considering that you posted one of Nathaniel Jeanson’s Answers in Genesis articles as an exemplary illustration of Young Earth Creationist science at its best, what do you think of Jeanson proudly “using and abusing” his scientific training? He justifies it for reasons which include “influencing eternity”. What do you think he means by that? Is he admitting to a “the end justifies the means” mentality?
Do you understand why the idea of “abusing” one’s scientific training and knowledge sounds dishonest and disreputable to many of us? It almost sounds like he is proud to be a compromiser of truth who is delighted to be a propaganda artist for a disinformation organization.
I would think @Patrick’s friends at the Freedom from Religion Foundation would have a field day with such a proudly bizarre and outrageous declaration by Nathaniel Jeanson. Greg, are you willing to denounce Jeanson’s behavior in this regard? Or are you “tolerant” of his behavior.
(Greg, I must admit that I find the aforementioned antics and nonsense of people like Ham, Cameron, Purdom, and Jeanson, as well as the Hovinds, Ray Comfort, and so many other professional origins-ministry entrepreneurs to be embarrassing and destructive to the Body of Christ. Are they the money-changers in the Temple you warned us about? And the quotations I posted for the aforementioned YEC speakers are not atypical flukes where they accidentally misspoke. Those absurd statements are favorite themes which they repeat daily in countless venues. Shame. Are you willing to denounce them or are you “tolerant”?)
3 Likes
You’re also in a trolling mood it seems.
Not that it’s a necessarily bad thing.
2 Likes
What a waste of talent. He had a career in medical science where he could make a real difference in people’s lives and he choses to go to ICR and then to AiG. He really did abuse his training and I feel it is a waste. I am thinking about the person who didn’t get into Harvard Medical School because it turns out that the slot was wasted on Jeanson. I hope she was able to pursue her dreams and went to some other medical school and is helping people in their lives. After seeing this, I have even less respect for Dr. Jeanson than I previously had.
Djordje, I’m being very direct with Greg because he has recently admonished us (or at least appeared to admonish us) that we as Christians were being tolerant of untruths and unbiblical ideas and behaviors. He also heavily promoted Answers in Genesis as exemplary agents for truth and faithfulness to the scriptures. He implied that being “peaceful” and congenial at Peaceful Science is shirking our defense of truth and the Gospel. So my strong pushback is entirely intentional—even while I’m doing so “peacefully.”
(By the way, a troll is someone who posts solely for the purpose of provoking strong reactions. Neither Greg’s posts nor the various strong reactions to his posts constitute trolling. I think it is safe to say that all of us who have posted on this topic have very thoughtful motivations behind our posts. That is why I would disagree with the misuse of that term.)
4 Likes