You better see a doctor then.

I didn't tell you I didn't believe the frog/chicken story. I told you, in no uncertain terms, it didn't happen. Only the most gullible would believe such nonsense.

I have already posted the findings that homo sapiens contain genes from neanderthals and others. I guess you were not paying attention.

No evidence or research is necessary to "debunk" Wilcox. It is simply rubbish. It is, in fact, one of the biggest piles of rubbish ever seen in one place.

My statement about a beam of energy causing the death of the organism if it could change enough dna to change species is simply fact, not opinion.

You do not ever seem to be able to understand the difference between fact and opinion. That is sad. The level of goofiness of your posts, stated as fact, is enough to make anyone's brain bleed.

So are you claiming that neanderthals are not humans?

They are not homo sapiens. They are members of the Homo genus but the species is listed as Homo neanderthalensis. There has been sufficient dna found to analyze. Parts of the world have a percentage of their DNA, as I have already posted.

Either it is possible for one species to change into another species or not.

If you know of any Darwinian evidence of one species completely changing into another I would like to hear about it.

Homo sapiens and neanderthals are still both considered human.

Well the French are not the Africans either, but they are all still humans.

So ... you really don't know what homo sapiens means, right?

I have no argument that animals evolve into different versions of their specific species, and I am ready to believe that an animal can completely evolved into a different species, (such as the frog eggs into salamanders).

I have not actually seen evidence that this kind of evolution has happened.

The original information about the Russian Experiments has been taken down from their original place on the Internet. If it did happen, nobody wants to advertise it.

If it didn't happen, then fine. But still Darwinian evolutionists expect me to believe that humans evolved from a different species that was not human. Where is the evidence for that?

And where is the evidence that any animal has done that?

Just answer the question. Homo sapiens are humans and so are neanderthals. Right?

For that matter, how does science define "human?"

The first modern people evolved in southern Africa more than 60,000 years ago - and not in the east of the continent as most scientists believe, a study concludes. After analysing DNA samples from 27 populations in modern-day Africa, researchers say the most likely location for the 'cradle of humanity' is the Kalahari desert region of South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. The modern-day click-speaking bushman from the desert show the greatest genetic diversity of any Africans - suggesting that their home was the birthplace of the first true Homo sapiens.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1364074/Modern-man-evolved-southern-African-bushmen.html#ixzz1XbegSGpj

Evolution .

Hmmmm........I prefer to just call it changes that take place

WITHIN a

species, in order that the species be able to adapt to its

environment.

(Personally,I feel things are devolving, not evolving...

but that's another subject for another time ).



But as far as evolution is concerned,

changes can ONLY take place WITHIN a species.

Meaning.....


the species does NOT and cannot change into a WHOLE OTHER SPECIES,

in order to adapt to its environment.


And futhermore, there is no evidence if this ever happening.


According to God's Word, A SPECIES EVOLVING INTO A whole OTHER

species, CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER happen....

simply because God made everything to REPRODUCE AFTER ITS OWN


KIND.

ONLY.


So ....can changes occur WITHIN a species, in order that the

species adapt to its environment ?

Yes.


Can a species evolve into a WHOLE OTHER SPECIES, in order to

adapt to ones environment?


According to God's Word, NO.


Is there any evidence of this even EVER happening?


EVER?

NONE.


WHY?

Because God's Word does not Lie.


Hope this helps clarify.

You answer a question with a question and demand an answer? That's pretty funny.

You think the difference between a Frenchman and an African is the same as the difference between a human and a neanderthal? You should go study the topic a little.

All humans on this planet are homo sapiens. That was not always the case. You are confusing humans with hominids.

From Wiki:

The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.[2] Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped with another phenetic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis.

By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by about 30,000 years ago, with no further individuals having enough Neanderthal morphological traits to be considered as part of Homo neanderthalensis.[3][not in citation given]

Genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 and 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in 1–4% of the genome of people from Eurasia having been contributed by Neanderthals.[4][5]

The youngest Neanderthal finds include Hyaena Den (UK), considered older than 30,000 years ago, while the Vindija (Croatia) Neanderthals have been re-dated to between 33,000 and 32,000 years ago. No definite specimens younger than 30,000 years ago have been found; however, evidence of fire by Neanderthals at Gibraltar indicate they may have survived there until 24,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon or early modern human skeletal remains with 'Neanderthal traits' were found in Lagar Velho (Portugal), dated to 24,500 years ago and controversially interpreted as indications of extensively admixed populations.[6]

When discussing the different branches of life on Earth, the scientific name given to each plant and animal is broken into two parts. The first is the genus and the last is the species. Hence a modern human is a homo (genus) sapiens (species).

First of all, this pic is from a PhotoShop contest.

Second - Regarding Dr. Pjotr Garjajaev and his team, I am unable to find anything about them on any site other than their own, which makes anything they publish highly suspect. A real scientist would have some credentials SOMEWHERE...even on Wikipedia (which is a whole different set of credibility challenges, but still...) I could publish a rambling paper full of incoherent & misspelled sentences full of big words used incorrectly or meaninglessly and tell you I was a member of some "academy of science" that sounded impressive, too. Does that make it true? I'd at least get a spell-check program or ask someone to proof read my ramblings. No one can really believe this is real science, can they???

Finally, I looked at all the David Wilcox videos and the guy is more of a new age theorist - certainly not a scientist. Frankly, I don't even think he's very good at his motivational love talk. I do believe in kinder, gentler and loving outlooks on life and that we create our own positive reality (for example) but this guy seems like a charlatan of the worst type. There are so many people with that message who do it well (Wayne Dyer, Les Brown, Zig Zigler, Jack Canfield and the list goes on) why on earth would you choose this guy to hold up as gospel of any type – especially evolution theory or science? Sorry, but I’ve got to agree with mykesorrel and metalwing about the bleeding.

Mutations (like 3 eyed frogs) are NOT evolution or proof thereof. By the same token, there is no reason evolution and theology can’t co-exist if you have an open mind. Honestly, though…credible sources really are necessary – even for those of us who are NOT scientists and don’t play one on TV (or on youtube!)

Well primitive as they were, and no matter what you call them, they were still classified human were they not?

I mean, do scientists draw a line between animal and human or not?

If so, where is that line?

For Pete's sake, I just answered that question in great detail. The line is with a SPECIES. The humanness of the other species in unknown since none are left. Some may have had language.

Back off a bit there galendgirl!

First, I am not holding anyone up as gospel of any type.

Secondly, I do have an open mind and I am simply trying to open up a discussion from either side of the issue.

Either an animal can evolve from a total different species or not. Either there is scientific proof or there isn't.

Either a neanderthal is a human or it isn't

As for Russian scientists, I don't know how credible they are. I have heard that they have discovered something about oil that nobody else in the world will listen to and they don't believe it is a limited resource. They have all the oil they need apparently.


I also know that frog picture is photo shopped.

So "human" is not considered a "species?"

I understand that there are different kinds of primitive and more modern humans. I understand that they have all been given fancy names.

But they are all humans. That is all I wanted you to admit.

geeeeze.

Early man lived to be over 900 years old.


And who knows..he probably looked like a neanderthal man.


And now , man only lives to be 100 at most.


That obviouly means that SOME kind of change had to have taken

place in man,

in order to cause man to go from living 900 to only 100

years, or less.




Lets see what the bible says:


The bible states that man died

spiritually RIGHT away, when he sinned in the garden.....

and then slowly started dying physically ever

since.



Hmmmmm...so could it be that when sin entered the world,

everything else started slowly dying , also?


And everything HAD to adapt to changes, that came as the result

of everything slowly dying(including man)?


Wouldn't it be more feasible to say then,

that we are slowly Devolving ,

instead of Evolving?



BUT......HEY....THERE'S GOOD NEW!!!

God Has PROVIDED an Answer ....a WAY out.... for the fall of man.


A WAY back to GOD...just like it was before the fall.


And in time, all things will be restored....and made brand

new..and

there will be no more dying ...no more death...

and the lion will even lay down with the lamb.


Yes.

Now....

THAT'S GOOD NEWS FOLKS!!!

GOOD NEWS!!!



AMEN!!!!!

But Jeanniebean, if you keep posting a silly reference, it makes your point loses credibility, too. Get good references. Seriously! We live in an age where even Russian scientists (if they are real) are able to communicate legitimate findings - the cold war is OVER. Being open minded enough to look at those Wilcox videos is great - but people also have to be open minded enough to realize when it's not credible and move along to real science.