its out there,,,,,

Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says

read more at:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html

Maybe I'm confused as to what you intend to show me; at first I assumed it would have something to do with race and species.

What I see here is that this article shows that I have been careless in my use of the word 'human', as I was thinking only of the modern world. They use the word species in the biological sense, and they use it properly. I don't see them using the word race.

The question of what image is conjured up, while definitely important, is a bit different than the question of what is considered the valid use of language.

Strangely enough, when I hear someone say "So and so is a LIAR!", the first thing I think is "This person is being accused of making false statements, I wonder if its because they failing to practice good logic in their evaluation of evidence." Okay, not in those words. More like "maybe that person just sucks at reason as much as the rest of us."

In my life experience, the vast majority of accusations of lying are due to people not being careful wrt the accuracy of their beliefs. The jealous ex-bf isn't realizing he is telling lies when he shares his mis-perception of 'that party where she kissed that guy' as 'fact'. A rumor gets stared and the woman then goes around accusing her bf of 'being a liar'.

Oh! I just figured out why you posted the NG link. I think you were responding to:



But now I believe you didn't read the whole sentence, carefully; I was questioning the frequency of the use of the phrase "What species of human" where 'species' would be used in the non-biological sense.

NG was using the word species in a biological sense. I mean, of course they did - they write for a science-interested and science-educated audience. If the topic of chemical reacts come up, they may use the word species in the non-biological sense.

Interesting responses in this thread. I find it very interesting with all the evidence of Dinosaurs, evolution, among other natural phenomena why people don't even for one split second say in their head "maybe i should consider this" (basing this mostly on religious people i encounter), even i use to be a super Christian, but when it came to science and the Bible, i just couldn't believe a lot of the stories which led to my atheism. Appreciate the responses nonetheless.

If y'all are so smart why??!! Did we
Stop evoving..

yes, science took over and now future human changes will be man made and produced,,,,,instead of 'naturally' evolving,,,

Well if you beleve or not trust me brother's&
Sisters. The end is neer the new world order
Is here!!!!! In Texas for laber dayDPS is
Doing check stops.. Mandatory blod test
Not by trand nurses!!!DPS officers!!!

So why did the apes stop.. Don't they
Want to be like us??

we werent evolved from apes, we are supposed to have a common ancestor with apes


kind of like how cheney and Obama are related, yet Obama didnt actually come from Cheney,,,,they just had COMMON ancestors which make them 'related'

I find it interesting what you said here: "when it came to science and the Bible, i just couldn't believe a lot of the stories which led to my atheism."

I too used to be a Christian. Although, I didn't 'turn' to religion for the purpose of believing in a god. I just accidentally happened to be born into a Christian family.

However, from an extremely early childhood I always innately felt that life is essentially spiritual. Even before I was old enough to seriously consider these things as actual 'topics'. In other words, my innate feelings of being a 'spiritual' being go back to far before I even knew what the word 'spiritual' even mean.

In other words, I just innately knew that the true essence of my existence was something far more profound than just this physical existence in this life. I didn't even need to put 'words' to it. I learned the words much later as I grew up.

So in any case, when it came to my attention that the biblical stories of God could not be true, that didn't really bother me in terms of continuing to believe in a spiritual essence to reality.

However, your statement above actually serves to help me to understand why so many people who believe in specific stories, such as the biblical story of a God cannot even remotely consider giving up those stories. For them that would mean that "god does not exist" and the only alternative to that would indeed be atheism.

In fact some of these religious people (perhaps far more than a few) desperately believe that the biblical story of a God is associated with a gift of eternal life which cannot be found anywhere else.

Thus, for them, giving up the biblical stories would be forfeiting the idea of everlasting life.

I have to seriously laugh at that because that truly is a silly idea. To think that a story is the only thing that stands between a spiritual or non-spiritual existence is truly funny.

I've been discussing the bible on another web site, and we were discussing King David. This is the very King from which Jesus was supposedly descended, even though that very thought is utterly silly since Jesus was suppose to be the son of God born of a virgin, and not the decedent of David. Even making out like Mary was a decedent of David would be silly. That would be totally irrelevant if Jesus was ultimately a demigod as the New Testament demands.

Moreover, this King David had committed both adultery and murder over that very same adulterous act. Yet he was supposed to be the King from which Jesus was a bloodline? That would be horrible. I confess that I never really caught that detail before.

So Jesus (and Mary too!) would have been the decedent of a King who was an adulterer and murderer.

That's the best that God could do in terms of finding a bloodline for his "only begotten son"?



I mean, these stories aren't even realistic.

They are every bit as screwed up as Greek Mythology. Riddled with absurdities. Who would even want there to be a God who would have been associated with such ignorant and criminal people?

King David was a MURDERER!

Surely an all-wise God could have done better than that!

Let's not forget too that this God was supposedly appointing these Kings into their Kingly positions. And he couldn't find a better person than a murderer and adulterer to choose to be a King?

I don't think you need science to recognize that these story are utterly bogus.

Trust me, if there's a spiritual essence to this universe it has nothing to do with some bozo jealous God who is appeased by blood sacrifices himself, supports male-chauvinism, and chooses adulterous murderous kings to ultimately be the bloodline of his "only begotten son".

You can rest assured that these fables are fake without turning to science for reasons to reject them.

But if stories were the only reason that you believed in a spiritual existence of reality in the first place, that would have been a pretty empty faith in any case. May as well be an atheist if you're going to do that.

I am not at all familiar with the theory of evolution except in the extremely general sense that creatures change and adapt to their environment or they don't survive.

I don't know what evidence has been incorporated into the theory or the nature of its over-all conclusion.

My feeling is that it is not the whole truth and that it does not rule out intelligent design being involved in the process of the emergence or evolution of life forms.

I think of life emerging from a somewhat "intelligent" energy field that is connected and works as a single living hive or community. DNA plays an extremely important roll in the emergence of life. I think the formula for an infinite number of different variations of life is contained in DNA, the ultimate form being humanoid for sentient beings.

I believe that the universe and this galaxy is bursting with life forms of all kinds.

But if stories were the only reason that you believed in a spiritual existence of reality in the first place, that would have been a pretty empty faith in any case. May as well be an atheist if you're going to do that.



agreed.

It seems to me that most people I meet will get around to asking you if you believe in one of two things:

1. Evolution
2. Creation

I don't believe in either of these theories. They are both way off track.

When it comes to the ultimate question concerning where DNA came from or how life originally emerged from a universe of inanimate matter I have to say "I don't know."

The only thing I can guess is that inanimate matter... may not be as inanimate as we think. It may contain energy and information that when unlocked will burst into some kind of life form.

Well, "Creation" is not a 'theory' anyway. Typically it's associated with some specific religious myth.

Evolution is almost always misunderstood and way over-simplified.




I agree with this general idea. We tend to recognize objects formed from complex DNA molecules as being somehow different from the basic chemical elements. And in a sense they are different, but only in terms of complexity. Period.

That's the only difference.

The DNA itself is nothing more than a conglomeration of the basic elements of "star dust".

So it's no different really. Other than it's complexity. That's the only difference.

And yet that complexity stems from the original complexity of the original elements which are not exactly 'simple' in their own right.

We are made of the very same stuff that rocks are made of. Especially if you want to think about coal or diamonds. It's all just carbon, and a few other elements which are themselves nothing more than metals, gases, and so forth.

In a very real sense we are just "rocks" that have evolved into fleshy beings. Even water is nothing more than "melted rock" (i.e. ice). Everything become "rock solid" at a low enough temperature so in that sense everything is ultimately made of rocks really.

We're just taking rocks.

Even our blood is nothing more than a flowing river of molten rock filed with carbon gravel. (i.e. mostly just melted ice carrying cellular corpuscles made from carbon rocks)

ooooh, like these easy ones. we haven't. we're still evolving.

nobody, at least no credible scientist, 'believes' in a theory. and of course creation hardly meets the definition of a scientific theory:

'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell. no, i don't have a damn internet link. had to type directly from the friggin' book but evolution does indeed meet this definition, creation does not.

have scientists 'observed' human evolution? predicted and tested it?