Faces of our anscestors

[konradv]

Some cool facial reconstructions of different hominid species over the ages.

Faces of Our Ancestors : Discovery News

 

[LAfrique]

Some cool facial reconstructions of different hominid species over the ages.

Faces of Our Ancestors : Discovery News

I know I am not descendent of monkeys. Those features by Discovery.com are features of hybrids.

 

[konradv]

Some cool facial reconstructions of different hominid species over the ages.

Faces of Our Ancestors : Discovery News

I know I am not descendent of monkeys. Those features by Discovery.com are features of hybrids.

Hybrids of what? To be correct we aren't descendants of monkeys, but a common ancestor. They lived millions of years ago; where are the humans, if we're not descended from them?

 

[flacaltenn]

Some cool facial reconstructions of different hominid species over the ages.

Faces of Our Ancestors : Discovery News

I know I am not descendent of monkeys. Those features by Discovery.com are features of hybrids.

Hybrids of what? To be correct we aren't descendants of monkeys, but a common ancestor. They lived millions of years ago; where are the humans, if we're not descended from them?

Now that's a vapid semantical distinction.. We have a "common ancestor"?? Ok -- some lemur or more accurately we ascended THRU a type of monkey.. OR as I posted last week --- your TRUE ancestor is a squirrel from hell..

Go to the thread to see the face of your earliest mammalian ancestor..

Or just look under your sink faucet for the great grandaddy of us all --- the slime mold..

 

[konradv]

I know I am not descendent of monkeys. Those features by Discovery.com are features of hybrids.

Hybrids of what? To be correct we aren't descendants of monkeys, but a common ancestor. They lived millions of years ago; where are the humans, if we're not descended from them?

Now that's a vapid semantical distinction.. We have a "common ancestor"?? Ok -- some lemur or more accurately we ascended THRU a type of monkey.. OR as I posted last week --- your TRUE ancestor is a squirrel from hell..

Go to the thread to see the face of your earliest mammalian ancestor..

Or just look under your sink faucet for the great grandaddy of us all --- the slime mold..

Vapid? Try accurate. It's those that keep popping up with the monkey story that are twisting the tale. Whether a squirrel from hell or a slime mold, we had to start from somewhere, since the fossil record in no way supports any sort of creation theory on the order of Genesis. IMO, being unable to deny the existence of God, the one true line of the creation story seems to be "Let there be light"(The Big Bang).

 

[flacaltenn]

Hybrids of what? To be correct we aren't descendants of monkeys, but a common ancestor. They lived millions of years ago; where are the humans, if we're not descended from them?

Now that's a vapid semantical distinction.. We have a "common ancestor"?? Ok -- some lemur or more accurately we ascended THRU a type of monkey.. OR as I posted last week --- your TRUE ancestor is a squirrel from hell..

Go to the thread to see the face of your earliest mammalian ancestor..

Or just look under your sink faucet for the great grandaddy of us all --- the slime mold..

Vapid? Try accurate. It's those that keep popping up with the monkey story that are twisting the tale. Whether a squirrel from hell or a slime mold, we had to start from somewhere, since the fossil record in no way supports any sort of creation theory on the order of Genesis. IMO, being unable to deny the existence of God, the one true line of the creation story seems to be "Let there be light"(The Big Bang).

"The Monkey Story??" You got a Different Tree of Life diagram than I do???

Hominidae <---- THERE'S your "Monkey Story"..

And for them --- they're looking to a SQUIRREL as their branch off the old tree..

By any scientific measure -- that's where we descended thru.. Before you go lumping me in with the brainless side of the Scopes trial -- let's define some terms.

I GRUDGINGLY accept this geneology. I'm not happy as a scientist with the amatuerish focus on Darwin to explain all of this explosive evolution. And if Darwin KNEW what we know NOW about mutations and DNA and cosmic radiation --- he wouldn't be either.

I happen to believe that evolution is a mixture of Darwins simplistic adaptation and more importantly the occurence of swift and violent natural actions like cosmic ray intervention, chemically induced mutations, and other MASSIVE and quick shifts in biological development. Those kind of events which might also be accompanied by massive extinctions would be called in insurance parlance -- "acts of God" ---- would they not??

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

But enough about me. You're wrong about Genesis.. It's actually QUITE scientifically accurate. First there was the Big Bang. (light).. Then the firmaments and the stars, Then the land and oceans. And the fish and birds and some other species PRECEDED man.. The entire story has legs --- except of course for the time line... But I'm not a fundy, and I like to stick to science. And MOST of the scientists I know, are humble enough to take a concept about being related to a slime mold with a WHOLE LOT of "faith" attached to that assertion..

 

[American Horse]

Here's an interesting one of closer relative just off our Homo Sapiens Sapiens lineage.
Note the hazel eyes and the red hair and freckles. These are some of the features we acquired genetically from our encounters with them. Some of the others besides skin color, hair color, freckles, and eye color (MC1R) are:

Rhesus factor, Phenylketonuria - PKU, Huntington's Disease, Psoriasis,
Multiple Sclerosis, IgA, celiac, autoimmune diseases and autism

Modified reconstruction of Gibraltar Neanderthal child


Skin color, hair color, freckles and eye color - MC1R

Aspie-quiz have found higher prevalence of red-hair color in autistic people. Red/auburn hair and fair skin are related to 3 mutations in MC1R (R151C, R160W and D294H) and the origin of those mutations are 50,000-100,000 years, they were introduced by hybridization with Neanderthals.

Aspie-quiz have found higher prevalence of brown/hazel eye color in autistic people. From the number of silent mutations in African versions of the MC1R gene, Dr. Rogers and two colleagues, Dr. David Iltis and Dr. Stephen Wooding, calculate that the last sweep probably occurred 1.2 million years ago, when the human population consisted of a mere 14,000 breeding individuals.

In other words, humans have been hairless at least since this time. 1.2 million years ago is similar to the time of the split between the cold and warm adapted population. This might mean that nakedness was the factor that started the divergent evolution between cold and warm adapted humans.

SOURCE (with references and foot-notes)

LINK to top of article page

 

[konradv]

Now that's a vapid semantical distinction.. We have a "common ancestor"?? Ok -- some lemur or more accurately we ascended THRU a type of monkey.. OR as I posted last week --- your TRUE ancestor is a squirrel from hell..

Go to the thread to see the face of your earliest mammalian ancestor..

Or just look under your sink faucet for the great grandaddy of us all --- the slime mold..

Vapid? Try accurate. It's those that keep popping up with the monkey story that are twisting the tale. Whether a squirrel from hell or a slime mold, we had to start from somewhere, since the fossil record in no way supports any sort of creation theory on the order of Genesis. IMO, being unable to deny the existence of God, the one true line of the creation story seems to be "Let there be light"(The Big Bang).

"The Monkey Story??" You got a Different Tree of Life diagram than I do???

Hominidae <---- THERE'S your "Monkey Story"..

And for them --- they're looking to a SQUIRREL as their branch off the old tree..

By any scientific measure -- that's where we descended thru.. Before you go lumping me in with the brainless side of the Scopes trial -- let's define some terms.

I GRUDGINGLY accept this geneology. I'm not happy as a scientist with the amatuerish focus on Darwin to explain all of this explosive evolution. And if Darwin KNEW what we know NOW about mutations and DNA and cosmic radiation --- he wouldn't be either.

I happen to believe that evolution is a mixture of Darwins simplistic adaptation and more importantly the occurence of swift and violent natural actions like cosmic ray intervention, chemically induced mutations, and other MASSIVE and quick shifts in biological development. Those kind of events which might also be accompanied by massive extinctions would be called in insurance parlance -- "acts of God" ---- would they not??

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

But enough about me. You're wrong about Genesis.. It's actually QUITE scientifically accurate. First there was the Big Bang. (light).. Then the firmaments and the stars, Then the land and oceans. And the fish and birds and some other species PRECEDED man.. The entire story has legs --- except of course for the time line... But I'm not a fundy, and I like to stick to science. And MOST of the scientists I know, are humble enough to take a concept about being related to a slime mold with a WHOLE LOT of "faith" attached to that assertion..

You act as if evolutionists are lock stepped to Darwin's theory. The theory has also evolved to the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which you basically described. How did you find out about it? From the same evolutionists that put together the timeline of hominid development. Don't get your panties in a bunch. If I've misconstrued your position, it's because you haven't presented it well. You called the currently accepted theory as "vapid". What was I supposed to think?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, Progressives are the missing link

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's an interesting one of closer relative just off our Homo Sapiens Sapiens lineage.
Note the hazel eyes and the red hair and freckles. These are some of the features we acquired genetically from our encounters with them. Some of the others besides skin color, hair color, freckles, and eye color (MC1R) are:

Rhesus factor, Phenylketonuria - PKU, Huntington's Disease, Psoriasis,
Multiple Sclerosis, IgA, celiac, autoimmune diseases and autism

Modified reconstruction of Gibraltar Neanderthal child


Skin color, hair color, freckles and eye color - MC1R

Aspie-quiz have found higher prevalence of red-hair color in autistic people. Red/auburn hair and fair skin are related to 3 mutations in MC1R (R151C, R160W and D294H) and the origin of those mutations are 50,000-100,000 years, they were introduced by hybridization with Neanderthals.

Aspie-quiz have found higher prevalence of brown/hazel eye color in autistic people. From the number of silent mutations in African versions of the MC1R gene, Dr. Rogers and two colleagues, Dr. David Iltis and Dr. Stephen Wooding, calculate that the last sweep probably occurred 1.2 million years ago, when the human population consisted of a mere 14,000 breeding individuals.

In other words, humans have been hairless at least since this time. 1.2 million years ago is similar to the time of the split between the cold and warm adapted population. This might mean that nakedness was the factor that started the divergent evolution between cold and warm adapted humans.

SOURCE (with references and foot-notes)

LINK to top of article page

You can't fool me.. I KNOW a Hobbit when I see one..

 

[flacaltenn]

Vapid? Try accurate. It's those that keep popping up with the monkey story that are twisting the tale. Whether a squirrel from hell or a slime mold, we had to start from somewhere, since the fossil record in no way supports any sort of creation theory on the order of Genesis. IMO, being unable to deny the existence of God, the one true line of the creation story seems to be "Let there be light"(The Big Bang).

"The Monkey Story??" You got a Different Tree of Life diagram than I do???

Hominidae <---- THERE'S your "Monkey Story"..

And for them --- they're looking to a SQUIRREL as their branch off the old tree..

By any scientific measure -- that's where we descended thru.. Before you go lumping me in with the brainless side of the Scopes trial -- let's define some terms.

I GRUDGINGLY accept this geneology. I'm not happy as a scientist with the amatuerish focus on Darwin to explain all of this explosive evolution. And if Darwin KNEW what we know NOW about mutations and DNA and cosmic radiation --- he wouldn't be either.

I happen to believe that evolution is a mixture of Darwins simplistic adaptation and more importantly the occurence of swift and violent natural actions like cosmic ray intervention, chemically induced mutations, and other MASSIVE and quick shifts in biological development. Those kind of events which might also be accompanied by massive extinctions would be called in insurance parlance -- "acts of God" ---- would they not??

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

But enough about me. You're wrong about Genesis.. It's actually QUITE scientifically accurate. First there was the Big Bang. (light).. Then the firmaments and the stars, Then the land and oceans. And the fish and birds and some other species PRECEDED man.. The entire story has legs --- except of course for the time line... But I'm not a fundy, and I like to stick to science. And MOST of the scientists I know, are humble enough to take a concept about being related to a slime mold with a WHOLE LOT of "faith" attached to that assertion..

You act as if evolutionists are lock stepped to Darwin's theory. The theory has also evolved to the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which you basically described. How did you find out about it? From the same evolutionists that put together the timeline of hominid development. Don't get your panties in a bunch. If I've misconstrued your position, it's because you haven't presented it well. You called the currently accepted theory as "vapid". What was I supposed to think?

I'm enthralled by the new theories of "accelerated evolution" and massive shifts in short periods of time.. It's MUCH more believable than Darwin..

And I do stick up for faith because a LOT of science rests on faith.. It's just that some folks (read that left-leaning secular humanists that mock religion) lack any humility to admit it..

What I called vapid was the silly distinction you offered to avoid the fact that we descended DIRECTLY from fellow Hominids like monkeys. We need to face the science that says that and embrace it without qualification until you or I have a better explanation..

No need to wad any panties today..

 

[varelse]

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

A bit simplistic...

And Genesis has plants existing before the sun...

 

[flacaltenn]

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

A bit simplistic...

And Genesis has plants existing before the sun...

A little critical nit-picking there since the SEED for plants and trees were brought on the 3rd day and the SUN was placed on 4th day.. Maybe God likes to cultivate in the dark..

All in all -- the order and progression of creation is all scientifically in the ballpark.
Do you read Vonnegut with the same demand for literal strictness?

And evolution a la Darwin IS ENTIRELY simplistic having no knowledge of the changes required to DNA or how they can occur or that radiation/chemicals/stress are actually bigger drivers of evolution than simple adaptation for survival.. Or that mass extinctions of which Darwin was not aware leave huge holes for expanded development.

All these newly discovered drivers of evolution look more like "acts of God" in the legal sense than simple Darwinian theory..

 

[whitehall]

Facial reconstruction based on recovered skulls reveals doll like images that offer little resemblance to living creatures. Reconstruction based on fragments of skulls is guess work at best.

 

[konradv]

Facial reconstruction based on recovered skulls reveals doll like images that offer little resemblance to living creatures. Reconstruction based on fragments of skulls is guess work at best.

Educated guess work based on tons of data.

 

[konradv]

If it was as simple as "survival of the fittest" -- everything on earth would have huge teeth and claws..

A bit simplistic...

And Genesis has plants existing before the sun...

A little critical nit-picking there since the SEED for plants and trees were brought on the 3rd day and the SUN was placed on 4th day.. Maybe God likes to cultivate in the dark..

All in all -- the order and progression of creation is all scientifically in the ballpark.
Do you read Vonnegut with the same demand for literal strictness?

And evolution a la Darwin IS ENTIRELY simplistic having no knowledge of the changes required to DNA or how they can occur or that radiation/chemicals/stress are actually bigger drivers of evolution than simple adaptation for survival.. Or that mass extinctions of which Darwin was not aware leave huge holes for expanded development.

All these newly discovered drivers of evolution look more like "acts of God" in the legal sense than simple Darwinian theory..

No "acts of God" required beyond laying down the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. This is a really interesting web site that gives an entirely plausible scenario for the evolution of DNA with no outside agency required. Quite long. It took me a couple of weeks to go through it in its entirety, but it cleared up my area of concern regarding the theory. Good luck.

Evolution of DNA

 

[varelse]

First sign someone knows nothing of the science of evolution: they keep talking about Darwin in 2012

That's like talking about thr 'plum pudding' model or Newton when discussing the operation of a nuclear reactor

 

[Ernie S.]

Clearly, Progressives are the missing link

It's a shame they aren't still missing.
The good news is Dante is hominid after all.