Man or Gorilla? Scientist Questions Skull Theory

Reuters ^ | Fri Jul 12,10:29 AM ET | John Chalmers

[Licensed-To-Carry]

"OK, here is one plausable and simple explaination."

New Guinea Communities and the Migration Dispersion Model

The origin of the peoples of New Guinea is a subject of dispute among anthropologists. Regardless of their origin, New Guineans in the past have tended to isolate themselves in small groups which have become diversified both linguistically and genetically. R. Daniel Shaw compiled data on the ABO, MNS and Rh blood groups for natives of New Guinea in 37 areas spread over the entire island in an attempt to discover any relationships that might aid in correlating these genetic data, (31) and which might provide some basis for postulating bow these diverse groups arose.

Although the data are insufficient to validate any theory, Shaw maintained that his data supported a Migration-Dispersion model for the origin of these New Guinea population groups. According to this model, as individuals migrate in small numbers from a common gene pool, the new group becomes more distinct than the source group. This is so because new generations come from only a limited gene pool and are isolated from the normalizing effect of interbreeding within a large gene pool where all genetic factors are available. Genetic traits peculiar to the group are thus rapidly and strongly expressed because of a high degree of inbreeding.

It is postulated that "Papua-Melanesians" migrated to New Guinea in relatively large numbers. After settling on the coasts of what was probably an uninhabited island, population growth forced these people to migrate up river valleys and into the highlands. These groups became reproductively isolated from one another due to geographic, linguistic and cultural barriers. This gave rise to populations that were genetically diverse from one another, since each migratory group had carried with it only a fraction of the total gene pool.

While evolutionists generally propose that the origin of races required gradual processes over a vast length of time, creationists postulate that a process similar to the one above could have caused the origin of races in a short period of time. The rapid dispersion that took place following the confusion of tongues at Babel would have resulted in the isolation of relatively small groups. Furthermore, the manner in which God bestowed various languages among this previously monolingual human population may have been so directed as to isolate genetically similar individuals in the same language group.

Thus, those individuals having a higher proportion of genes for Negroid features, or for Caucasian features, etc., may have been given a common language. Once the race itself was established through isolation and inbreeding, further migrations and other isolating mechanisms, such as those described above, could account for the diversity within each major racial group.

[gore3000]

"Creationist," as used here, indicates someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the first six or seven chapters of Genesis (at least up through the Flood) and consequently sees evolution as the Devil's attempt to draw souls away from God. There are maybe a handful of creationists on these threads.

A total and blatant lie. Evolutionists call any Christian who disagrees with their theory a 'creationist' even if the person in no way claims to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago or not. In addition to which not to believe that God is The Creator is a denial of Christianity itself. The Bible is totally meaningless if God is not The Creator.

[sonofron]

are you using evolution to proove the story of the tower of babel in the bible? damn, that's freestyle! this post reminds me of an article that was posted not too long ago, citing remarkable genetic similarities in the welsh, irish and basques. after thousands of years these groups are still genetically identical. this kind of stuff is really interesting to me, but there seems to be suppossed "evidence" from both sides.

[Condorman]

"Is the Bible literally true?" placemarker

[Buffalo Head]

In other words you postulate that the several races evolved from the original race over time?

[Buffalo Head]

Still waiting for your reply.

It's not that difficult. Some of the creationists believe that a half dozen distinctly different races could EVOLVE from an original race in only 6 thousand years. What kind of changes could we expect over 6 million or 6 billion years?

You don't need to reply. The answer is obvious to all but the blind.

[Junior]

I'm back placemarker.

[aruanan]

Remember when the gracilis and robustus species of Australopithecus became female and male of a single species? And then later gracilis was said to have given rise to both robustus and afarensis?

[Licensed-To-Carry]

Well I guess the only reply I can give you is that I personally just don't believe in evolution. I believe in the Bible as being the Word of GOD. Genesis 1:1.

Now you can call me stupid or blind or a fanatic if it makes you feel better but I cannot except the idea that the human race started out in a mud puddle. I believe we were created by GOD and not by random accident.

I may be completely wrong, and if I am, in 100 years from now, you and I will be in the same nothingness. But if I am right, then I will be someplace you are not.

This is not scientific so I'll just call it faith based. I'm not a teacher or scientist or intellectual, but we will all know the answers in the fullness of time.

You don't have to reply either.

[SkyRat]

By golly, you're right! A new fossil is found. There is some initial confusion about how to classify it. Therefore -- ta da! -- Noah's Ark is the one true "scientific" answer.

Weren't X-Ray's first thought to be harmless? If we don't allow our scientist to reclassify when new evidence is found, why search for new evidence at all.

o_O ?
I would like to know that.

[Buffalo Head]

A far simpler and more plausable explaination for the things that we don't yet fully understand about life is that God created evolution.

[RightWhale]

As far as evolution goes, how about horses? There's a pretty good series of horses going pretty far back but not all the way back. They are somewhat recent. The older horses are small and have characteristics somewhat different than modern horses, the hooves, for example. Not counting what we have done to them by our own efforts to breed certain attributes, they seem to have evolved on their own.

[far sider]

Still waiting for your reply.

It's not that difficult. Some of the creationists believe that a half dozen distinctly different races could EVOLVE from an original race in only 6 thousand years. What kind of changes could we expect over 6 million or 6 billion years?

You don't need to reply. The answer is obvious to all but the blind.

The "races" of mankind do not comprise different species. They are not even considered to be different subspecies! From the darkest aborigine to the lighest European, we are all "Homo sapiens sapiens." Every domesticated animal or plant exhibits much more variation than human races. Chihuahuas and Great Danes and every other dog are precisely the same species, yet all or most of their variation has occured in historical times. The same with cats, horses, pigeons, apples, cabbages, and hundreds of other species.

It is not hard to explain the development of various races in a few thousand years due to genetic mutations and isolation. This has not resulted in new species. Different races can interbreed and produces perfectly healthy and fertile offspring.

The truly hard thing to explain is how in 100 million years the coelacanth has not changed one iota. How is it logical to believe that coelacanths (or a similar species) evolved into humans and whales and penguins and ostriches and snakes and mice and turtles and every other vertebrate species (except fish, of course), yet the coelacanth as a species has not evolved at all? I don't have enough "faith" to believe that. This is one of the things that convinced me that evolution is not true.

Similarly horseshoe crabs, bats, and almost every other species have not changed at all since there first appearance in the fossil record.

[far sider]

Remember when the gracilis and robustus species of Australopithecus became female and male of a single species? And then later gracilis was said to have given rise to both robustus and afarensis?

It seems like they change that mess of an evolutionary tree every time they find a new fossil. I think hilarious that they expect us to accept this stuff as fact when they can't even agree among themselves.

[edsheppa]

"Creationist," as used here, indicates someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the first six or seven chapters of Genesis ...

I, and I think many others, use the term far more broadly (e.g young-earth v.s. old-earth creationists). In fact IMO it's possible to be a creationist and evolutionist.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

This is one of the things that convinced me that evolution is not true.

I agree with you. The more I read and understand both arguments, the more silly evolution becomes. There are more holes than I can count. Here is a little something that was written by an evolution debunker that you may find interesting and may help to solidify your beliefs even more.

"There is a big difference between micro and macro-evolution. No one denies micro-evolution, the adaptation of a species to different environments. However, macro-evolution is much more than adaptation, it is a transformation of a species into another much more complex one. Macro-evolution is clearly required to occur if evolution is true. Otherwise there is no way that we could have gotten from bacteria to humans without the intervention of The Creator.

The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.

Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.

So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus." -gore3000

Fregards and happy debunking :) ~MM

[aruanan]

It seems like they change that mess of an evolutionary tree every time they find a new fossil. I think hilarious that they expect us to accept this stuff as fact when they can't even agree among themselves.

The operation is thus: We know that the general idea is correct though any or all of the specifics are subject to change.

[GrandGizmo]

Well, it’s pretty humorous when evolutionists put all their faith in ignorant men who write books based on nothing but theory - book that tend to stretch truths and make a laughing stock of science just in order to prove the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does not exist. But, I like it is written: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalms 14:1.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from a few years ago. Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·