Creation scientists

[The Barbarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbdwVTMLt3U

A good video addressing the Neanderthals. A bit lengthy but informative. For some reason, the video doesn't actually start until a couple of minutes in. Fast forward about two minutes to the start.

I lasted about 23 minutes when the stupid got just too much for me.   But a few points:

Their five keys to separate humans from apes won't work.    If you say they need all five of them, Neanderthals aren't humans.   If you say they need just some of them, Australopithecus and Aridpithecus are humans.

They have it backwards about the humanity of Neandertals.   Even today some creationists still don't think they are human, while even when first discovered (Darwin didn't discover it, BTW; another error by these guys) scientists recognized that they were human.

He's confused about the issue of a chin.   The difference is that the bracing for the chin in anatomically modern humans is on the outside, while in apes and many other early humans like Neandertals, the bracing is inside.   The "simian shelf" is not a dividing line between humans and apes.   AFAIK, only anatomically modern humans have chins without the internal shelf.

Other differences between modern humans and apes are the wide pelvis, the "knock-kneed" legs that facilitate walking,  feet with a huge non-opposable big toe, with an arch, and the policis muscle in the hand that permits fine grasping motions.

Hominids from Australopithecus on have some or all of these.     

The expert goofed about the size of Neanderthals.  They were shorter than we are, albeit very muscular.

The expert assumed that evolutionary theory doesn't accept stasis. Darwin predicted it.

The expert confused "Mt. Ararat" with the "mountains of Ararat"; two different places.

The expert asserts that Neandertals died out because of the cold.   They survived through the worst of the ice age, and went extinct only as the climate warmed.

The expert asserts that inbreeding killed the mammoths.   How he made that assumption is not revealed,but there is no evidence whatever for it.

And as I said, the stupid just got to thick to deal with, and I stopped there.

[4WD]

It was a question 4WD, not faulty extrapolation. If I had said you do believe all who have not heard the gospel were lost, that would be faulty extrapolation. Your argument seemed to me to be suggesting that the judgment of humanity is only in relation to those who have heard the gospel. Thus, as I have understood it, you deny that the evidence of creation is enough to convince people of that truth unto judgment as suggested by Paul in Romans 1. Therefore the question. Stop faultily extrapolating that I have made an accusation, in asking you a question for clarification. If you please.

I will answer your question with a question.  I try not to do that routinely, but in this case I think it is warranted.  You asked:

So, are you saying that all who have not heard the gospel message are lost, or beyond God's judgment?

My question in answer to you is, "Do you read anywhere in Scripture that all who have not heard the gospel message are lost, or beyond God's judgment?"  I will let you answer your own question by answering my question.

[Amo]

I will answer your question with a question.  I try not to do that routinely, but in this case I think it is warranted.  You asked:My question in answer to you is, "Do you read anywhere in Scripture that all who have not heard the gospel message are lost, or beyond God's judgment?"  I will let you answer your own question by answering my question.

No. See I answered your question. It was pretty easy of course. You still haven't answered some my questions. You said -

That is crap.  That is not true.  The faith necessary unto salvation is faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God.  Creation says not one thing about God's Son.  It says nothing about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross; about His death, burial and rising again from the grave.  It says not one thing about faith, confession, repentance or baptism.  What it does say in Romans 1 is that creation is enough to convince them of the existence of God and yet they glorified Him not.  That is not the faith unto salvation.

So yes, from you it is the same old crap.  You make some bogus interpretation of the Scriptures and then try to hold everyone else accountable to that.

That sounds a bit like you are saying those who don't have a chance to hear the gospel are lost.

Jesus Christ is God who created the world as I have demonstrated from scripture. The rejection of God as our creator is the rejection of Jesus Christ. It is the rejection of the most basic understanding leading to salvation. Those who reject this truth, cannot be saved. No one less than God, our creator, could pay the penalty for our sins as Jesus did. Those who reject the creation of this world by God, are rejecting Jesus in doing so. There is no gospel without this fundamental foundation. As the book of Hebrews testifies.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Belief in the creation account is a basic building block of faith leading to salvation. Denying it, as is apparent form Romans 1, leads to the loss of salvation. Do you not agree with this conclusion? In this sense, I determine that all are given a measure of faith which can lead to salvation if followed through. Even to the extent of all being without excuse according to Paul. Do you not agree? Who then has an excuse? And if there is no excuse, then would God not be unjust, if He did not give to every man at least a measure of faith to build upon?

[Amo]

https://crev.info/2018/12/evolution-neanderthal-man-evolution-ancestor-modern-man/

Quoted article below from link above.

The Evolution of Neanderthal Man From Evolution Ancestor to Modern Man

It took over 100 years, but Darwinians have finally promoted Neanderthal Man to Homo sapiens. How did it happen?

by Jerry Bergman

Neanderthal fossils were first discovered in 1829 in caves in what is now Belgium. This human type was named Neanderthal, after Neander river, a tributary stream of the Rhine near Düsseldorf. A skull cap, ribs, part of the pelvis, and some limb bones were found in a small cave in a valley there, forming the name Neanderthal, tal meaning valley.[1]  Soon many other discoveries of similar types of bone fragments were made. It was observed that Neanderthals had shorter legs and stockier bodies then the average European.[2] Scientists now postulate that this adaptation helped them to preserve heat in the cold climates where they lived. Judging from a few early skeletons, the leading anatomist/ pathologist of the time, Professor Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), believed that the bones found then of Neanderthals were modern Homo sapiens, but deformed by rickets in childhood and by arthritis later in life.

As Darwinism began to dominate science in the early 1900s, the almost universal picture of Neanderthal Man in the early 1900s, judging by manakins and illustrations produced then, was he was a primitive ape-like brute. An 1888 illustration of Neanderthal produced by Professor Schaaffhausen (Illustration 2) is actually better than many, but still shows him looking very apelike.

Neanderthal was for many decades commonly pictured in the textbooks as an important  evolutionary link in the evolution of humans from some ape like creature (see illustration 2). Numerous examples exist. The display of the prestigious American Museum of Natural History in the Hall of the Age of Man showed him to be an evolutionary link between Cro-Magnon and Piltdown, the later example having been proven a forgery.[3] As more research was completed, the image of Neanderthal has gradually changed. He became less brutish and, as more skeletons were discovered, evidence was found that Neanderthals walked upright, had spines straighter than those of modern man, and was a strong and sturdy man. Eventually, enough skeletons were discovered to assemble an entire skeleton structure from the parts. Next the skeleton was clothed with muscle, and then skin, to enable an accurate recreation of his entire physical body.

After further research on where they lived, often in caves, and at their burial locations, it was found that they used jewelry, used fire,[4] played musical instruments, did cave paintings, buried their dead, and were even capable of speech.

The Latest Research

The latest discovery published in an article written by an international team of scientists documented that Neanderthals breathed deeply from a somewhat bell-shaped ribcage, rather than from a modern barrel-shaped ribcage, as was once thought.[5] Thus he would have had, not a stooped posture as was often shown for decades, but good modern upright posture and breathed deeply from his diaphragm. These conclusions came from a recently completed 3D virtual reconstruction of the ribcage of the Kebara 2 skeleton, a headless but almost complete Neanderthal skeleton unearthed in a northern Israel cave.[6]

This research by scientists at universities in Israel, Spain, and the United States put the last nail in "the myth of the arm-dragging, hunched-over caveman."[7] The "size and shape of the Neandertal thorax has been a subject of scientific debate for more than 150 years" to determine if he was an evolutionary ancestor of modern humans or a modern human.[8] The main problem with the aforementioned study is that it is based on a single sample, not a large number, as is ideal. No doubt the study will be repeated to better answer the questions this study raised.

Some small differences compared to those of modern humans were found, including a slightly larger costal cartilage skeleton with longer mid-thoracic ribs. This difference probably resulted in a more voluminous thorax. Another difference was the lumbar curve in modern humans, which was far less pronounced in Neanderthals. The Neanderthal rib cage was broader at its base, with horizontal ribs, versus modern man's angled ribs. Likewise, one can see that the spine was attached more deeply inside the thorax than modern man.

Furthermore, the "Neanderthal spine is located more inside the thorax, which provides more stability. Also, the thorax is wider in its lower part. This shape of the rib cage suggests a larger diaphragm and thus, greater lung capacity," This larger thoracic volume could be due to a requirement for more oxygen intake as a result of their larger body mass and hypothesized hunter-gatherer life-style in the very cold climate where they lived.[9]

In short,  they had an upright posture with greater lung capacity and a straighter spine than present-day people. As a National Geographic cover article showed, Neanderthals are now fully recognized as one of us.[10]

[Amo]

The expert asserts that inbreeding killed the mammoths.   How he made that assumption is not revealed,but there is no evidence whatever for it.

And as I said, the stupid just got to thick to deal with, and I stopped there.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/did-inbreeding-doom-mammoth

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Did Inbreeding Doom the Mammoth?

When we think about the mammoth, we picture the 3-meter-high, 6-ton beast roaming northern Europe in imposing herds, fending off human hunters with their dangerous tusks. We don't imagine genetically deformed creatures stumbling through a doomed landscape, going to desperate lengths to stay alive in a rapidly changing world. But now, an unusual feature on some mammoth fossils dredged from the North Sea suggests that inbreeding may have hastened the mammoth's extinction 10,000 years ago.

The strange feature in question is a round, flat area that researchers were surprised to find on a mammoth neck vertebra from the North Sea. This meant that the neck bone once had a small rib attached to it, a rare abnormality that can point to other skeletal problems. When neck ribs—also called cervical ribs—occur in humans, for example, 90% of affected individuals die before they reach adulthood, not because of the rib itself, but because the condition occurs alongside other developmental problems. Neck bones may be fused together, for example, or bones in the lower back may fail to solidify. The condition is also associated with chromosome abnormalities and cancer.

Curious as to how widespread the neck rib abnormality might have been among North Sea mammoth populations, researchers led by paleontologist Jelle Reumer of the Natural History Museum Rotterdam in the Netherlands combed local museum collections looking for rib facets on mammoth neck bones that had been dredged from the North Sea. They found them in three of nine cases, the researchers report today in PeerJ. "This seemed [to be] an extremely high incidence," Reumer says. A similar search among modern-day elephant bones in museums, for example, revealed that only one out of 21 individuals had a cervical rib.

"Cervical ribs indicate there has been a disturbance of early pregnancy," says paleontologist Frietson Galis of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center in Leiden, the Netherlands, who worked with Reumer on the analysis. A neck rib could be a sign that the mother suffered harsh conditions, like disease or famine, while pregnant, or it could be a sign of genetic trouble due to inbreeding. In the case of the mammoths, Reumer and Galis suspect both.

Abnormalities fit in with Reumer's preferred explanation for mammoths' extinction, in which climate change fragmented their habitat, separating pockets of the animals from each other. In such small populations, inbreeding ensued, and the loss of genetic variation left the animals with few defenses against new onslaughts from parasites, disease, and human hunting. Galis describes the vicious cycle of inbreeding and vulnerability as an "extinction vortex." Still, because the cervical rib-sporting mammoth vertebrae weren't part of complete skeletons, the researchers couldn't tell if their bearers suffered other deformities.

Eleftheria Palkopoulou, a geneticist who has analyzed mammoth DNA but was not involved in the new study, says this scenario fits with her research that shows mammoth populations shrank about 20,000 years ago. She notes that genetic analysis could determine if inbreeding was truly occurring in the last mammoth populations, and that such studies are "now becoming technologically possible."

Paleontologist Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is skeptical, however, noting that the study included only a small number of mammoths and that inbreeding could be purely a result of dwindling population rather than a cause. Still, he says, "there's no question that [the neck rib] represents some interesting natural history."

"It's a fascinating idea," says Ross MacPhee, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, who was not involved in the study. Still, he notes that the researchers relied on the bones' approximate ages, which span a period of 20,000 years, but didn't perform the radiocarbon dating that could pin down the abnormalities to the very last years of the mammoths' reign. Without that precision, it's impossible to know if the abnormalities occurred only in a population that was in decline, or if they persisted for tens of thousands of years as an unusual but harmless feature. "I'm just not convinced" that the neck ribs are a smoking gun, he says.

https://sciencenordic.com/ancient-dna-archaeology-extinction/did-inbreeding-and-poor-health-kill-the-mighty-mammoth/1417077

Did inbreeding and poor health kill the mighty mammoth?

https://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113104510/woolly-mammoth-extinction-inbreeding-032614/

Did Inbreeding Drive Woolly Mammoths To Extinction?

https://blogs.baylor.edu/bearsinthesea2013/2014/03/30/inbreeding-possible-cause-of-woolly-mammoth-extinction/

Inbreeding possible cause of woolly mammoth extinction

The above articles and many others no doubt contributed to the views expressed in the video. True enough, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the non stop evidence and speculative theories connected to them, pouring into print the world over. Everything is speeding up, beyond keeping pace. Making it difficult of course, to debate information which is constantly being revised, changed, or abandoned. While this is the nature of science, I believe it also exposes the danger of putting too much faith in it, as it is ever increasingly and rapidly changing and even abandoning previous views.

[Amo]

The expert goofed about the size of Neanderthals.  They were shorter than we are, albeit very muscular.

https://www.archaeology.org/news/7995-190909-france-neanderthal-footprints

Neanderthals May Have Been Taller Than Previously Thought

https://archaeology-world.com/ancient-footprints-show-neanderthals-may-have-been-taller-than-thought/

ANCIENT FOOTPRINTS SHOW NEANDERTHALS MAY HAVE BEEN TALLER THAN THOUGHT

[Rella]

I should have posted this here, but now have it here as well on its own.

Especially for you Barbarian.....

https://parentingfactor.com/g/anthropology-and-history/people/girls-parents-different-species/?utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=search&utm_content=HOMEPAGE_US_--_yahoo.com&utm_campaign=Geneticists_Studying_Ancient_Dna_Carousel_Ads_US_ALL_494741&utm_term=404030236

[The Barbarian]

The question of inbreeding being the cause of mammoth extinction would be difficult to argue.    Since declining numbers would result in inbreeding, your guy merely assumed that what might be an effect of extinction was the cause.   It's not even established that inbreeding cause cervical ribs or even that they would be harmful to mammoths.

Given that mammoth DNA is available from frozen specimens, it wouldn't be hard to test their inbreeding assumption by just comparing DNA from large number of those animals.   

[The Barbarian]

The expert goofed about the size of Neanderthals.  They were shorter than we are, albeit very muscular.

Neanderthals May Have Been Taller Than Previously Thought

It is possible to make a reasonable estimate of a modern human's height by measuring his or her stride.   This might be extended to Neandertals, assuming they had the same sort of stride modern humans have.   But it seems to me, that a more accurate determination would be to just measure the long bones of the skeletons we have, and see how tall they were. 

Anatomical evidence suggests they were much stronger than modern humans[1] while they were slightly shorter than the average human, based on 45 long bones from at most 14 males and 7 females, height estimates using different methods yielded averages in the range of 164–168 cm (65–66 in) for males and 152 cm (60 in) for females.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy

[The Barbarian]

I should have posted this here, but now have it here as well on its own.

Especially for you Barbarian.....

https://parentingfactor.com/g/anthropology-and-history/people/girls-parents-different-species/?utm_source=Yahoo&utm_medium=search&utm_content=HOMEPAGE_US_--_yahoo.com&utm_campaign=Geneticists_Studying_Ancient_Dna_Carousel_Ads_US_ALL_494741&utm_term=404030236

It is not established that Neandertals or Denesovans were a separate species.   They are genetically close enough to have been races (subspecies) of our own H. sapiens.   They are classfied as  H. sapiens neandertalis, or H. neandertalis, depending on which side of the question you take.   So, it's not two entirely different species.   If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.  And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

[The Barbarian]

https://crev.info/2018/12/evolution-neanderthal-man-evolution-ancestor-modern-man/

Quoted article below from link above.

The first paper I read, indicating that Neanderthals were of our own species, was in the early 80s.    Jerry is off by about 40 years.    But as you see, that issue is not quite settled.  My opinion is that frequent interbreeding is sufficient to regard them as one species with us, but that is not universally accepted.   In fact, there have been creationists who have denied that Neanderthals are human at all.

[4WD]

What is human scientifically may not be human biblically.  That is, biblically, a human being has a spirit formed in him by God Himself.  And that is quite apart from anything biological.

[Rella]

It is not established that Neandertals or Denesovans were a separate species.   They are genetically close enough to have been races (subspecies) of our own H. sapiens.   They are classfied as  H. sapiens neandertalis, or H. neandertalis, depending on which side of the question you take.   So, it's not two entirely different species.   If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.  And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

" If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior."

In my own kitchen, back in the early 1970s... while preparing for bed.... our beautiful poodle, in season was let out to air.

Opening the door, she was being chased by a racoon, trying to mount her.

My dad kicked the racoon under its chin very hard and it went running off.

That would have been quite a "new" species  in and of itself.

Males and females will mate, if there is any semblance of similarity between them... such as two legs, two arms, and a head walking upright.  I wont go into what you, as a man, ought to know and how it affect your thinking. 

[Rella]

It is not established that Neandertals or Denesovans were a separate species.   They are genetically close enough to have been races (subspecies) of our own H. sapiens.   They are classfied as  H. sapiens neandertalis, or H. neandertalis, depending on which side of the question you take.   So, it's not two entirely different species.   If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.  And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

So, it's not two entirely different species.   If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.  And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

Yep... so your assumption based on what you have read.... is wrong

[Rella]

What is human scientifically may not be human biblically.  That is, biblically, a human being has a spirit formed in him by God Himself.  And that is quite apart from anything biological.

A wonderfully true statement. " a spirit formed in him by God."

That does not necessarily stop any human being from coupling with something else. Now will that coupling procreate?

It would depend. Obviously tales of lads and sheep don't. Or Madonna and dogs don't. But if Neanderthals and Denisovans
interbred with each other, or humans I see this as no different then the attraction that different races of humans today
getting together. Black and White... Asians and whites, or even Asians and blacks.... Just go check out the Polynesians
of Hawaii today.

We dont even have to go much further back then 6ooo years and look at the Nephilim... and the inbreeding they did.

But an interesting read is found and about ,in this commentary on the movie Noah

Who—or what—are the rock giants in Noah the movie?  And the Book of Enoch.

Genesis 6 makes no mention of rock giants—or fallen angels—helping Noah build the ark. Where then did the rock giants in Noah the movie come from? Are they merely an invention by Hollywood scriptwriters?

The Hollywood blockbuster Noah has generated its fair share of controversy, with some saying the movie took too many liberties with the Biblical text. Certainly it is not a straightforward retelling of the flood story in Genesis 6, but as Ronald S. Hendel points out in his Biblical Views column "Noah, Enoch, and the Flood: The Bible Meets Hollywood," which appears in the July/August 2014 issue of BAR, the flood story has been reimagined in Christian and Jewish texts, such as the apocryphal Book of Enoch, for millennia.

While rock giants are absent from the Book of Genesis, the Book of Enoch might shed light on their identity.

The Book of Enoch is a collection of texts, the earliest dating to the third century B.C.E., supposedly authored by the famous Enoch of the Bible, who lived "in the seventh generation from Adam" (Jude 14) and was taken by God: "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him" (Genesis 5:24). This apocryphal book reimagines the account of Genesis 5–6, adding details to the flood narrative and elaborating on what was revealed to Enoch in heaven.

noah-rock-giants
Who are the rock giants in Noah the movie? Are they to be identified with the Watchers, fallen angels in the Book of Enoch?

In its expansion of the flood account we are introduced to the Watchers, fallen angels who mated with human women and produced offspring—the Nephilim, the "heroes that were of old, warriors of renown" of Genesis 6:4—or giants. The Book of Enoch states that the Watchers shared secret knowledge with their sons that led to the corruption of the world. The giants ravaged the earth, filling it with destruction and evil; they depleted the world of food and terrified humankind. These actions trigger the flood.

When Enoch confronts the Watchers about their impending doom, they implore him to intercede on their behalf. He agrees—but to no avail. The Watchers' petition is not granted; they and their sons are not able to escape their punishment—the flood.

Returning to our earlier question: Who are the rock giants in Noah the movie? They're called fallen angels and are based loosely on the Watchers we see in the Book of Enoch.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/rock-giants-in-noah/

[Rella]

The first paper I read, indicating that Neanderthals were of our own species, was in the early 80s.    Jerry is off by about 40 years.    But as you see, that issue is not quite settled.  My opinion is that frequent interbreeding is sufficient to regard them as one species with us, but that is not universally accepted.   In fact, there have been creationists who have denied that Neanderthals are human at all.

And there are members here who deny Neanderthals ever where.

Are you referring to them interbreeding with Denisovans into one species?

What about the interbreeding with humans.

I have a fair amount of the variants in my DNA.  Does that disqualify me from being a normal human with those that dont?

[The Barbarian]

And there are members here who deny Neanderthals ever where.

That would be weird, considering the huge number of Neandertal remains we have, some of which allowed us to sequence their DNA.

Are you referring to them interbreeding with Denisovans into one species?

The evidence indicates that Denesovans split off from Neandertals, but yes, there is genetic data indicating they did sometimes interbreed.   As anatomically modern humans have interbred with each of them.   The consensus at this time, is that the three populations are subspecies not quite distant enough to qualify as separate species.    But there are scientists who place them in different species.   It's a close call, given how alike the three populations are genetically

What about the interbreeding with humans.

Yes.  There is abundant evidence for that.   Most modern humans, other than those of African descent, have some Neandertal and/or Denesovan DNA.

I have a fair amount of the variants in my DNA.  Does that disqualify me from being a normal human with those that dont?

That would be normal.   Most of us have lots of variants.   

[Amo]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/stone-tools-from-india-another-blow-to-human-evolution-model

Quote below from link above, emphasis is mine.

Stone Tools From India: Another Blow To Human Evolution Model?

Thousands of stone tools excavated from a site in India suggest that a sophisticated tool-making technology arrived in South Asia much earlier than once thought possible, say researchers. (Credit: Sharma Centre for Heritage Education, India) A new study on stone tools from a site in India offers the latest challenge to the model of human evolution and migration that has dominated paleoanthropology, particularly in the West, for decades. The artifacts, which the researchers say were produced with a sophisticated style of tool-making, are hundreds of thousands of years older than might be expected. What does it mean? Well, that part of the story is still up for debate. At the archaeological site of Attirampakkam in southeastern India, near Chennai, researchers have collected more than 7,000 artifacts, many of them stone tools that appear to show a transition from an early style of tool-making to one that's more sophisticated. The shocker: if the analysis is correct, the transition occurred more than 200,000 years earlier than expected based on previous evidence. Tool-making styles, or technologies, are important in the study of human evolution and migration for a couple reasons. For starters, stone tools have a habit of sticking around long after human remains have disintegrated. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. But the complexity of the tool technology — how the tools were made — also can reveal a lot about the cognitive ability of the toolmaker. The earliest tools at Attirampakkam belong to the Acheulean technology. Instantly recognizable by its teardrop shape, the Acheulean handaxe in particular was a considerable improvement on earlier Oldowan technology............................................

Same old never ending problem for the theory of evolution, complexity. We just keep finding biological, technological, and societal complexity further and further back in time. All of course suggestive of complexity from the beginning, not slowly developing over time. The real and ever increasing evidence of complexity from the beginning in special creation by God as the scriptures testify, is continually ignored by those who do not wish it to be so. Instead our "science", religion, societies, and government are hell bent upon a more fully humanistic thesis and existence on this God created and sustained planet unto its eternal doom. Just as the scriptures predicted it would be.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 2 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

How very strange that the church which claims the Apostle Peter was the first pope, now rejects the above testimony by him, in favor of the new humanism it now promotes in the sciences, religions, philosophies, societies, and politics of this world. Go figure.

[The Barbarian]

https://crev.info/2018/12/evolution-neanderthal-man-evolution-ancestor-modern-man/

Quoted article below from link above.

Jerry's got to be a special kind of dumb.   Even when the first Neanderthal was found, he was considered to be a human.    When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, anthropologists and paleontologists generally considered them to be our own species.   Those that didn't thought they were very close.    DNA analysis settled it; they are just a subspecies of our own.   H. sapiens neanderthalis , as we are H. sapiens sapiens.

I do not believe a living creationist exists that still considers Neanderthals to not be human.   Almost all of them now admit that Neandertals are of our own species.   The last creationist (who actually was a scientist) I know about who considered African people to not be fully human, (Agassiz) died in 1873, before the invention of YE creationism.

[The Barbarian]

The expert goofed about the size of Neanderthals.  They were shorter than we are, albeit very muscular.

https://www.archaeology.org/news/7995-190909-france-neanderthal-footprints

Neanderthals May Have Been Taller Than Previously Thought

https://archaeology-world.com/ancient-footprints-show-neanderthals-may-have-been-taller-than-thought/

ANCIENT FOOTPRINTS SHOW NEANDERTHALS MAY HAVE BEEN TALLER THAN THOUGHT

Well, let's take a look at that.   From your link:
Some of the largest prints at the site are thought to have been made by an individual who stood about five feet seven inches tall, about seven inches taller than most Neanderthals.

So the tallest guy was maybe 5'7" and the average was about 5'0."    Even the big guy was shorter than the average human today.   I don't think your guys read the whole thing, or maybe they just got excited and didn't read very carefully.  I say that because the other article gets it all wrong:

The scientists found the average height within this group of Neanderthals was 175 centimeters, (5 feet, 7 inches) compared with modern Homo sapiens averaging about 5 feet, 9 inches. These measurements, according to a report in New Scientist, match the average height of a man in the USA today suggesting Neanderthals could have been "taller than previous evidence suggests."

Guess which one is by the real scientist.   Yep. 

[The Barbarian]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/did-inbreeding-doom-mammoth

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

https://sciencenordic.com/ancient-dna-archaeology-extinction/did-inbreeding-and-poor-health-kill-the-mighty-mammoth/1417077

Did inbreeding and poor health kill the mighty mammoth?

https://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113104510/woolly-mammoth-extinction-inbreeding-032614/

Did Inbreeding Drive Woolly Mammoths To Extinction?

https://blogs.baylor.edu/bearsinthesea2013/2014/03/30/inbreeding-possible-cause-of-woolly-mammoth-extinction/

Inbreeding possible cause of woolly mammoth extinction

From the article:

Researches believe that the same is true here. Perhaps disease, famine, or the extreme cold  caused a decline in the woolly mammoth population size, causing a higher percentage of inbreeding.

You see, when a population declines, there will always be a reduction in genetic diversity.   This is why a "bottleneck"  where the population drops to  very low number, so often leads to extinction.     But that's not why extinction happened.  The cause was whatever caused the bottleneck, not the subsequent reduction in genetic diversity.    That will always happen, regardless of why the population declined.   

It's not that hard to figure out.  From the actual report:
We argue that the increased incidence of cervical ribs in mammoths is probably caused by inbreeding and adverse conditions that impact early pregnancies in declining populations close to extinction in the Late Pleistocene.

https://peerj.com/articles/318/

Your guy made the equivalent assumption to concluding that roosters make the sun come up.    He got it backwards.    Again, reading carefully would have prevented this from happening to him.

[The Barbarian]

What is human scientifically may not be human biblically.  That is, biblically, a human being has a spirit formed in him by God Himself.  And that is quite apart from anything biological.

Yes, and that's a big consideration.   We don't even know for sure which species of human were the two who first became living souls.

[The Barbarian]

So, it's not two entirely different species.

That's what I said.  Most anthropologists were leaning that way in the 1960s, long before we had DNA evidence indicating so.

If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.

A few years ago in (IIRC) the Phoenix AZ zoo, they had to do renovation of the polar bear exhibit.    And someone said "You know, the grizzly bears have gotten along well with polar bears.   Why not just move them into the grizzly bear enclosure?"

They got along better than expected.   Ever seen a pizzly bear?

And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

Yep

... so your assumption based on what you have read.... is wrong

No, that's consistent with all three populations being subspecies of one species.


[/quote]

[Rella]

Quote from: Rella on Sun Mar 14, 2021 - 09:30:56
So, it's not two entirely different species.

That's what I said.  Most anthropologists were leaning that way in the 1960s, long before we had DNA evidence indicating so.

Quote
If they were different species, they would not interbreed in their normal behavior.

A few years ago in (IIRC) the Phoenix AZ zoo, they had to do renovation of the polar bear exhibit.    And someone said "You know, the grizzly bears have gotten along well with polar bears.   Why not just move them into the grizzly bear enclosure?"

They got along better than expected.   Ever seen a pizzly bear?

Quote
And yet, most people not of African descent have genes from Neanderthals or Denesovans, or both.

Yep

Quote
... so your assumption based on what you have read.... is wrong

No, that's consistent with all three populations being subspecies of one species.

No argument knowing that when females go into season males react, no matter the breed, when of similar kinds such as bears and when confined together.

Not so in the open, say, plains of Africa type settings, unless man starts to experiment.

The offspring could not be considered in any part of evolution.

[Amo]

https://crev.info/2018/12/evolution-neanderthal-man-evolution-ancestor-modern-man/

Quoted article below from link above.

The Evolution of Neanderthal Man From Evolution Ancestor to Modern Man

It took over 100 years, but Darwinians have finally promoted Neanderthal Man to Homo sapiens. How did it happen?

by Jerry Bergman

Neanderthal fossils were first discovered in 1829 in caves in what is now Belgium. This human type was named Neanderthal, after Neander river, a tributary stream of the Rhine near Düsseldorf. A skull cap, ribs, part of the pelvis, and some limb bones were found in a small cave in a valley there, forming the name Neanderthal, tal meaning valley.[1]  Soon many other discoveries of similar types of bone fragments were made. It was observed that Neanderthals had shorter legs and stockier bodies then the average European.[2] Scientists now postulate that this adaptation helped them to preserve heat in the cold climates where they lived. Judging from a few early skeletons, the leading anatomist/ pathologist of the time, Professor Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), believed that the bones found then of Neanderthals were modern Homo sapiens, but deformed by rickets in childhood and by arthritis later in life.

As Darwinism began to dominate science in the early 1900s, the almost universal picture of Neanderthal Man in the early 1900s, judging by manakins and illustrations produced then, was he was a primitive ape-like brute. An 1888 illustration of Neanderthal produced by Professor Schaaffhausen (Illustration 2) is actually better than many, but still shows him looking very apelike.

Neanderthal was for many decades commonly pictured in the textbooks as an important  evolutionary link in the evolution of humans from some ape like creature (see illustration 2). Numerous examples exist. The display of the prestigious American Museum of Natural History in the Hall of the Age of Man showed him to be an evolutionary link between Cro-Magnon and Piltdown, the later example having been proven a forgery.[3] As more research was completed, the image of Neanderthal has gradually changed. He became less brutish and, as more skeletons were discovered, evidence was found that Neanderthals walked upright, had spines straighter than those of modern man, and was a strong and sturdy man. Eventually, enough skeletons were discovered to assemble an entire skeleton structure from the parts. Next the skeleton was clothed with muscle, and then skin, to enable an accurate recreation of his entire physical body.

After further research on where they lived, often in caves, and at their burial locations, it was found that they used jewelry, used fire,[4] played musical instruments, did cave paintings, buried their dead, and were even capable of speech.

The Latest Research

The latest discovery published in an article written by an international team of scientists documented that Neanderthals breathed deeply from a somewhat bell-shaped ribcage, rather than from a modern barrel-shaped ribcage, as was once thought.[5] Thus he would have had, not a stooped posture as was often shown for decades, but good modern upright posture and breathed deeply from his diaphragm. These conclusions came from a recently completed 3D virtual reconstruction of the ribcage of the Kebara 2 skeleton, a headless but almost complete Neanderthal skeleton unearthed in a northern Israel cave.[6]

This research by scientists at universities in Israel, Spain, and the United States put the last nail in "the myth of the arm-dragging, hunched-over caveman."[7] The "size and shape of the Neandertal thorax has been a subject of scientific debate for more than 150 years" to determine if he was an evolutionary ancestor of modern humans or a modern human.[8] The main problem with the aforementioned study is that it is based on a single sample, not a large number, as is ideal. No doubt the study will be repeated to better answer the questions this study raised.

Some small differences compared to those of modern humans were found, including a slightly larger costal cartilage skeleton with longer mid-thoracic ribs. This difference probably resulted in a more voluminous thorax. Another difference was the lumbar curve in modern humans, which was far less pronounced in Neanderthals. The Neanderthal rib cage was broader at its base, with horizontal ribs, versus modern man's angled ribs. Likewise, one can see that the spine was attached more deeply inside the thorax than modern man.

Furthermore, the "Neanderthal spine is located more inside the thorax, which provides more stability. Also, the thorax is wider in its lower part. This shape of the rib cage suggests a larger diaphragm and thus, greater lung capacity," This larger thoracic volume could be due to a requirement for more oxygen intake as a result of their larger body mass and hypothesized hunter-gatherer life-style in the very cold climate where they lived.[9]

In short,  they had an upright posture with greater lung capacity and a straighter spine than present-day people. As a National Geographic cover article showed, Neanderthals are now fully recognized as one of us.[10]

[Amo]

https://www.abroadintheyard.com/evolution-of-neanderthals-over-last-100-years-says-more-about-us/

Quoted article below from link above.

The 'evolution' of Neanderthals over the last 100 years says more about us
by Lee Rimmer for Ancestry - Genealogy & DNA

The dramatic change in our perception of the Neanderthals as a species since the discovery of their remains in the Neander Valley in 1856 is reflected in the following timeline of images.

Over the last 100 years, reconstructions of their appearance have slowly become 'humanised' with each new revelation about their culture and physiology, culminating in the stunning discovery in 2010 that up to 4% of the genome all modern humans of European and Asian origin carry Neanderthal DNA, as a result of interbreeding between the two species.

Naturalist Johann Carl Fuhlrott was the first to recognise that the 1856 Neanderthal remains belonged to an ancient race of humans.  It was a controversial interpretation for many, as it contradicted religious beliefs about human origins; the short, stocky limb bones and the skull's oversized brow suggested an ape-like ancestor that did not fit in with the biblical idea of God's creation.

The discovery in 1908 of a nearly complete Neanderthal skeleton at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France, shaped popular perceptions of the Neanderthals for the next few decades.  Unfortunately, because the specimen was severely arthritic, it gave the impression that all Neanderthals had bent knees and walked like chimpanzees.  This fuelled the preoccupation of the time with finding a 'missing link' between modern humans and apes.  With a lack of human fossil remains to go on, Neanderthals seemed to fit the bill.

The reconstructions of 'the primitive human races' below by the prehistorian Aimé Rutot and the sculptor Louis Mascré around the same time reflect this notion.  Rutot said: "According to my ideas, which are a result of my studies, I think that Neanderthal Man is the holdover from a race of Humanity's Precursors, a subjugated race, long since enslaved by other, really human, beings of a higher evolutionary line, whom we know under the name 'Paleolithic'.  These final descendants of an ancient race, that still resembles animals and has been reduced to slavery, lived with their master in shared caves.  The master gave the orders, the slave obeyed."

The scientific name for the Neanderthal species – Homo neanderthalensis – was first suggested by geologist William King in 1864.  However, an alternative proposal put forward by Ernst Haeckel in 1866 – Homo stupidus – is more revealing about common attitudes to the Neanderthals which persisted well into the 20th century.  The public's imagination about Neanderthals became more captured in popular literature in the 1920s.  In his book, The Outline of History, H.G. Wells suggested that an ancient cultural memory of the Neanderthals may have survived as the ogres and trolls of folklore.  He assumed that the first modern humans did not interbreed with Neanderthals, as they would have been repelled by the Neanderthal's 'extreme hairiness', 'ugliness', and 'repulsive strangeness'.  Wells further wrote that, "Its thick skull imprisoned its brain, and to the end it was low-browed and brutish."

The reconstructions by sculptor Frederick Blaschke, exhibited in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago in the 1920s and 30s, mirror this sentiment.  A 1929 guide on Neanderthal Man by the curators of the museum describes how Blaschke modelled the figures on casts of Neanderthal skeletal remains and with the advice of European anatomists.  The guide boasts: "As to anatomical details therefore, it is believed that a remarkably accurate reconstruction of several different individuals such as would form a Neanderthal family has been made." The level of hairiness of the Neanderthals was unknown so, "as the primitive men ofAustraliahave several Neanderthaloid characters, including heavy brow ridges, it was decided to follow their hirsute type."  Oddly though, the males have short-cropped hairstyles.

The discovery of 9 Neanderthal skeletons in northern Iraq in the 1950s confirmed changing perceptions.  One was buried with flowers, showing that Neanderthals buried their dead with symbolism and ceremony.  Further research on the original specimens concluded that Neanderthals walked upright in the same way as modern humans.  However, the great illustrator Zdeněk Burian, in the 1960 book Prehistoric Man, still portrayed them as hairy, ape-like throwbacks, in this scene of a Neanderthal encampment.

By the 1980s, Neanderthals had developed in popular culture.  In 1980 Jean M. Auel published The Clan of the Cave Bear, the brilliant first book in the Earth's Children series.  The plot centres on the fictional relationship between Ayla, a five-year-old modern human orphan, and the Clan of the Cave Bear, a band of homeless Neanderthals who reluctantly take her in.  Exploring the theme of communication, Auel assumes that the Neanderthals lack the full vocal development of modern humans and has the clan using a mixture of gestures and body language to supplement their small vocabulary.  Their ability to describe past events and communicate ideas is therefore limited, as is their ability to innovate – talents which come naturally to Ayla.  Artist Jay Matternes takes up the theme of communication in his 1982 portrayal of a Neanderthal cave settlement in the Pyrenees.  They are still simian-looking, but less hairy, and are sociable and communicative.

Even into the 1990s, Neanderthals are still depicted as primitive and functional, as this exhibition in the American Museum of Natural History in New York shows.  Its scene of a small group of Neanderthals, camped beneath a rock shelter, is set 50,000 years ago in what is now western France.  The museum website concedes that "Neanderthals were probably less brutish and more like modern humans than commonly portrayed," and that they were, "sophisticated toolmakers and even prepared animal hides, which they used as clothing."

Giant strides in our understanding of the Neanderthals came in 1997, when scientists were first able to amplify their mitochondrial DNA using a specimen from the original 1856 site in the Neander Valley.  In 2000, the Channel 4 documentary Neanderthal described how they were not covered in thick hair, but wore clothing made of animals skins and were far more sophisticated than popularly believed.  The film-makers employed palaeontologists and behavioural experts, as well as latex prosthetic masks and computer technology to recreate the life of a clan of Neanderthals.  Professor Chris Stringer was an adviser on the programme and explained that the legend of the hairy caveman was one of many myths that arose from the 1856 discovery, "We didn't then have the very early fossil record we now possess from Africa, so people tried to place the Neanderthal in the position of 'the missing link'.  We now believe they were simply a different species which evolved quite separately from our ancestors."  The programme depicts the clan members killing a baby because they are desperate for food, and kidnapping a woman from another clan in order to breed.  Their linguistic skills are also shown to be equivalent in complexity to a modern human toddler's baby talk.

In 2004, a BBC Horizon documentary on Neanderthals claimed to do "something that no one has done before", to assemble "the first ever complete Neanderthal skeleton, from parts gathered from all over the world, to reveal the most anatomically accurate representation of modern humanity's closest relative."  One of their aims was to answer the burning question, "was Neanderthal a thinking, feeling human being like us, or a primitive beast?"  Their assembled team of leading experts produced "a very different beast to the brute of legend", which was "in many ways our equal and in some ways our superior."

Their recreation brought the Neanderthal to life, "with startling anatomical accuracy."  The skeleton stood no more than 5 feet 4 inches tall, but had an immensely powerful build.  The Neanderthal's rib cage flared out, unlike the modern human's, meaning that the Neanderthal did not have a waist.  Their short compact body and voluminous chest was an adaptation to a cold environment.  It supported a thick layer of muscle, giving both strength and insulation.  The Neanderthal skull showed that its brain was much bigger than the average modern human's – around 20% bigger.  It showed the same kind of cerebral symmetry, and the shape of its frontal lobe was no different.  The overall anatomical similarity suggested that the Neanderthal's cognitive abilities were the same as the modern human's.  A model of the Neanderthal's vocal tract showed it to be similar to a modern human female's and capable of speech.

The actor that the documentary 'reconstructed' with prosthetics to re-enact a male Neanderthal still looks distinctly different to modern humans, but appears thoughtful and intelligent.  The same thoughtful countenance appears on the representation of a female Neanderthal used in a TV commercial which aired around the same time.  The actress' prosthetics and make-up were created by SODA, a Danish make-up fx studio, which features the image of the Neanderthal woman in their 'creatures' section.

The 2006 male Neanderthal reconstruction in the Mettmann Neanderthal Museum in Germany also claims to have been "realistically recreated by means of the most up-to-date pathology procedures."  It too is based on the 1856 discovery in the Neander Valley, although a reconstruction of what could be his twin sister is based on a female Neanderthal skull found in Gibraltar.  The male Neanderthal, christened 'Mr N', is a 'front man' for the Museum and his image is most widely used in today's popular media to illustrate any story connected to Neanderthals.  He is clearly a jovial character, with a face to match – the customary large browridge, big nose and weak chin.  He also has a curiously shaved hairstyle (a proto-mullet?) and beard.

The epitome of modern Neanderthal 'evolution' finally comes in 2008 with Elisabeth Daynès' quite beautiful recreations.  Only subtly distinguishable from modern humans, they clearly reflect a species which, like us, diverged from a common stock and evolved along parallel lines, before their disappearance around 24,000 years ago.  They are portrayed as "an intelligent, cultured part of the human family."  With images like these, the news from the Max Planck Institute in 2010 that the two species did interbreed and share DNA is quite believable and acceptable to a modern human society whose belief in its uniqueness as a species is now uncertain.

Who's to say which artistic rendering above is the most accurate portrayal of the 'average' Neanderthal?  Research suggests that Neanderthals can be divided into at least 3 'racial' groups (western European, Mediterranean/Middle Eastern and western Asian).  Also, less than 400 examples of Homo neanderthalensis have ever been found since the 1856 discovery; and none yet include a complete skeleton.  You could probably find the same range of phenotypes amongst modern humans in any average town today.  The evolution of Neanderthal imagery over the past 100 years actually says more about our own evolution, both in terms of our scientific discovery and in the way we now evaluate 'primitive' cultures.

The link provided where the article is quoted from, provides many artists depictions of Neanderthal over the years. This visually conveys the real testimony of what many scientists thought and or believed about them in the past. 

[The Barbarian]

The Evolution of Neanderthal Man From Evolution Ancestor to Modern Man

It took over 100 years, but Darwinians have finally promoted Neanderthal Man to Homo sapiens. How did it happen?

by Jerry Bergman

Jerry's about 170 years off.    Darwin, for example, thought that the first Neandertal found was human, albeit not our direct ancestor.   He was right, of course.

In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued against the concept that the Neanderthals were humans' ancestors based on the Neanderthal skull's larger size. "Nevertheless," Darwin noted,
"it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious."
The skull was larger than expected to be a human ancestor. Intuitively, Darwin was right.
https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/archives/1387/darwin-dna-and-neanderthal/

That they were human has not been in dispute, except for a few creationists, who were misled by the lack of a chin, found only in anatomically modern humans.   All other human populations had the "simian shelf", a bridge of bone reinforcing the front of the jaw internally.   

In the 1960s, the literature generally asserted them to be of our own species, a determination confirmed by recent DNA evidence. 

Bergman tends to go off on tangents without adequate research.   It's best to always check his beliefs before accepting them.

[The Barbarian]

The link provided where the article is quoted from, provides many artists depictions of Neanderthal over the years. This visually conveys the real testimony of what many scientists thought and or believed about them in the past.

The first one found was highly atypical, an old man, crippled and deformed by arthritis.    So the depictions depended on his anatomy.   Later depictions reflected the more typical individuals found later.   Notice Darwin cut right to the chase, by noting the old man's large cranium, something found only in human primates.   Again, Darwin had it precisely right.

And Bergman just jumped to a faulty conclusion, because he didn't know much about these things.

[The Barbarian]

No argument knowing that when females go into season males react, no matter the breed, when of similar kinds such as bears and when confined together.

The trend in apes is reduced importance of estrus.   There still is some of that in chimps, and fewer remnants of it in humans, but not as it is in other mammals.

[Amo]

https://www.livestrong.com/article/542877-the-average-height-of-humans-over-time/

Quote below from link above.

.................................................

Middle Ages

Perhaps surprisingly, research by a team from Ohio State University suggests that people living in the Middle Ages — between the ninth and 11th centuries — were taller than those living in the early 19th century. Using skeleton evidence from Europe, the team found that average height decreased from 68.27 inches in the Middles Ages to a low of 65.75 inches in the 1600s and 1700s. According to team leader Richard Steckel, increased height in the Middle Ages is due to warmer than average temperatures in Europe during this period, extending the growing period by up to four weeks each year and ensuring improved supplies of food. People also lived what we would consider very stationary lives, so outbreaks of communicable disease did not have the opportunity to spread over large areas.

18th and 19th Centuries

Height did not begin to increase again until the 18th and 19th centuries, according to Steckel.......................

It looks like the average height of humans was relative to that of Neanderthal not very long ago.

[The Barbarian]

https://www.livestrong.com/article/542877-the-average-height-of-humans-over-time/

It looks like the average height of humans was relative to that of Neanderthal not very long ago.

Farmers tend to be smaller than hunter-gatherers, because famines are more common in farming populations.  Hunter-gatherers tend to be larger.   

Cro-magnons, anatomically modern humans who lived about the same time, and had similar life style, averaged between 5'8" and 6'0", depending on location.  Significantly taller than Neandertals.
https://gainweightjournal.com/prehistoric-men-and-the-ancients-were-better-faster-stronger/

Your link says that early modern humans and humans in the Middle Ages were taller than people in the 18th and 19th centuries.   So yes, even in the 18th and 19th century, modern humans were still significantly taller than the 5 foot average of Neanderthals.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/Bacterial-Proteins-Use-Quantum-Mechanics/

Quoted article below from link above.

Bacterial Proteins Use Quantum Mechanics

Researchers have found a dimmer switch inside a protein. It tunes the protein's configuration to take advantage of quantum mechanics during photosynthesis. Two parallels with human engineering leave no doubts about the engineered origins of this light collector.

University of Chicago scientists found an elegant sensor connected to the dimmer switch. Two critical chemical parts of the protein together act "as a trigger," according to University of Chicago news.1

Gregory Engel is a chemist at the University of Chicago and senior author of results published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).2 His group described when the trigger senses oxygen. Too much oxygen would damage the light-harvesting machines faster than the bacteria could rebuild them. The trigger acts as a failsafe. High oxygen levels trip the trigger, which then uses quantum mechanics to redirect light energy away from the most sensitive energy transfer equipment.

Today's triggers don't happen by chance, they happen on purpose. Could these bacteria come with purpose baked into the protein?

Engel told the university, "Were these results just a consequence of biology being built from molecules, or did they have a purpose? This is the first time we are seeing biology actively exploiting quantum effects."1 In so many words, yes, this team found the kinds of devices—sensors and dimmer switches—that only arise when an engineer intends a specific purpose. So we are actually seeing God actively exploit quantum effects in his purposeful construction of photosynthetic bacteria.

University of Chicago news said, "These bacteria need light to survive, but even small amounts of oxygen can damage their delicate photosynthetic equipment. So they must develop ways to minimize the damage when the bacterium does encounter oxygen." But if the bacteria waited to develop ways to maintain this equipment, they would have died! Instead, the bacteria must have had all their vital parts at once in a system-level package—just like a human engineer designs.

It looks like these bacteria were crafted from the top-down instead of bottom-up.3

These are the two parallels: purposefully built instrumentation and all-or-nothing parts. They parallel the activities of human engineers. But those same engineers cannot explain, they can only marvel at the elegance of operation, miniaturization of scale, and intimate knowledge of quantum-mechanics that typify the Person who engineered light-harvesting nanotechnology into these invisible cells.

Who could this Person be? How can we meet Him?

The PNAS study authors add the standard nod to nature in their report's final sentence, writing, "The redox-dependent vibronic coupling shown here exemplifies an evolutionary mechanism by which photosynthetic organisms can exploit the quantum mixing between electronic and vibrational states to control excited-state energy transfer dynamics."2 Evolutionary mechanism? What does that even mean?

Nobody has seen evolution's natural processes craft any mechanism, let alone craft mechanisms that outstrip mankind's abilities. And everybody has seen actual craftsmen, not accidents, craft mechanisms. There is a Person behind the biological mechanism. And whoever this Person is, He is more clever than we are and much more clever than natural processes.

[The Barbarian]

The PNAS study authors add the standard nod to nature in their report's final sentence, writing, "The redox-dependent vibronic coupling shown here exemplifies an evolutionary mechanism by which photosynthetic organisms can exploit the quantum mixing between electronic and vibrational states to control excited-state energy transfer dynamics."2 Evolutionary mechanism? What does that even mean?

That means that random mutations plus natural selection can increase fitness, as it did here.   There's nothing special about quantum effects.   If it has an effect on survival, then natural selection can act on it.

Nobody has seen evolution's natural processes craft any mechanism,

No, that assumption is wrong, too.  For example, bacteriologist Dr. Barry Hall observed bacteria evolve a new enzyme system in a series of mutations over several months.   To his surprise, the bacteria also evolved a regulator for the system, so that it only worked when the substrate was actually present.   

let alone craft mechanisms that outstrip mankind's abilities.

If you can find a human who can design a better system for those bacteria, there's a Nobel Prize in it for him.    Do you really think people can design something better than God's nature can produce?   He's a lot smarter and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

[Amo]

That means that random mutations plus natural selection can increase fitness, as it did here.   There's nothing special about quantum effects.   If it has an effect on survival, then natural selection can act on it.

No, that assumption is wrong, too.  For example, bacteriologist Dr. Barry Hall observed bacteria evolve a new enzyme system in a series of mutations over several months.   To his surprise, the bacteria also evolved a regulator for the system, so that it only worked when the substrate was actually present.   

If you can find a human who can design a better system for those bacteria, there's a Nobel Prize in it for him.    Do you really think people can design something better than God's nature can produce?   He's a lot smarter and more powerful than creationists would like Him to be.

Twisted is, as twisted does. Creating your own narrative again I see, and reversing things in your own mind, then presenting them as my or Creationists arguments. Yea, that's the ticket, Creationists think God isn't very smart. Cause Barb says so. What difference does it make concerning a designers smarts, or intelligence, whether they choose rapid or slowly developing design? Do you think the scientists who discovered this complexity believe God directed it? So very much if your evolutionary faith would not exist without all the atheist scientists who work on establishing it. Why do you place so much faith in their "wisdom"?

Psa 14:1  To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

A few years ago in (IIRC) the Phoenix AZ zoo, they had to do renovation of the polar bear exhibit.    And someone said "You know, the grizzly bears have gotten along well with polar bears.   Why not just move them into the grizzly bear enclosure?"

I don't think you're remembering correctly.  I've a membership at the Phoenix Zoo, and the last time I checked, we had neither Polar bears nor Grizzly bears here.  We do have black bears along the Forest of Uco path.