Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

quote:

---

jar

​

Of copuirse they were. Dood, you need to study your crazy insane ignorant Bible toatin' culture a little better

---

Before toatin homosaps, first determine what makes modern humans different from all life forms - is it their skeletal formations or minds - or are these common to all life? The tools used are contrived and selective - catering only to an end point assumption - and based solely on what fits. For the same reasons, we cannot allocate oxygen or hairs as the conduit of proof: these too are common factors for all life. Only the factor unique to humans can be the applicable one in determining what influenced modern man. And the only factor that's not common to all life, and which makes humans as human (different) is: SPEECH. And speech is not time factored nor accumulative: else the oldest life form would be transcendent in the acquisition of it. As it happens, only the most recent life form has this feature. Nor can we say that another life form will in the future or is about to beget speech: apes have already been around as long as it takes.Will you say you are a Neptunite - because IODINE was also found in Neptune?

quote:

---

vacate
You have mentioned similar a few times. What do you mean by seed? You earlier included a chickens egg as a seed. Do you also include Mitosis as seed?

---

A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.

quote:

---

A decent place to start would be here -
Observed Instances of Speciation

​

This was just a quick search. There is a lot of information available about the topic. Unfortunatly much of it is behind subsciption fees in science journals. I am sure, however, that more information is available online. A search of these forums is likely to result in a few hits also as I am sure this topic has been covered here before.

---

Been there, seen it, had it. The problem with these sites is they assume a Talibanic, religious attitude: they never address the inconsistancies of their premies, as if they are not 'theories' but fact; and they consider no alternatives. Check it out again - you will find no mention of a direct seed linkage - despite that it is indisputable that 99.9% of all similtitudes and all known attributes are derived that way - directly from the seed.Is a pineapple a pineapple - because of a pineapple seed - or because of cross-specie adaptation?

quote:

---

dr adequate:
You have still not explained how people 54,000 years ago could have gotten to the Moon.

---

I did. Evidenced humanity's history says this took 6000 years to achieve. This means a 60,000 humanity should have performed this feat 54,000 years ago. There's no need to think about it - its based on the known ratio of mental prowess on this planet.

quote:

---

Given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people. This is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account.

---

Are you saying someone is monitoring this situation - that 54,000 years ago, the population looked like it was going to overwhelm this planet - and this process was averted? And does this also satisfy the issue of mental prowess? Does'nt make sense!

I would have said a visibly white sclera is also unique to humans. Why not? And what does "transcendent in the acquisition" mean?

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

A what? Is a computer a seed? It has factors (what I see on my screen) derived from the internal workings of the PC. Both? If you answer "because of a pineapple seed", you must then answer "why is a pineapple seed a pineapple seed, rather than an apple seed?", without referring back to a pineapple and setting up a circle of logic, like so:Why pineapple? Pineapple seed.
Why pineapple seed? Pineapple.Edited by Doddy, : circle example

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

What does that mean? Reproduction, including DNA transmition, occurs from an internally derived factor? Could you be clear, because this makes little sense at all, and can hardly be said to 100% vindicate Genesis. The new species cannot breed with the old species. Doesn't that about cover it? Mention it? It still does not make any sense! The new population is no longer similar enough in its DNA to breed with the old population. Due to mutations its "seed" is no longer compatable.Do you have any math that supports your 99.9% or did you just make it up? What does the .1% include? Both.I ask you the question - Is a pineapple still a pineapple after it has had enough mutations to no longer consider it the same species?

What's in a name? That which we call a pineapple by any other name would get stuck in your teeth.Edited by Doddy, : sorry, couldn't resist it. Willy ftw!

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Too true I would suggest that we call this one a Pernambuco, I just like how it rolls off the tongue. (and then doesn't stick in the teeth)

This argument seems circular to me could you please explain to me how it isn't?You argument looks like this.Premise 1: Humans have been around for 6000 years and have accomplished moon travel and a significant increase in population.Premise 2: It doesn't look like the things that are happening now happened 54,000 years ago.Conclusion: Humans have only been around for 6000 years.Do you see how the start of your premise "humans have been around for 6000 years" looks a lot like the conclusion to you argument "humans have been around for 6000 years?"What I see is.Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years (we come to this conclusion due to many independent scientific studies spanning many different fields) and it has taken all of that time to get people to the moon.

Ah. That explains how you reach your conclusions.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

And this tells us that it took 6000 years after the point at which we started writing history.60,000 years ago, we were not writing history, hence we could not have gone to the Moon 54,000 years ago. No, I am not saying that. You are saying that. This is why it doesn't make sense.What I am saying is that given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people, and that this is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account.This is why I said: "Given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people. This is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account."

The phrase "internally derived factor" gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up. Of course you will find no mention of a "direct seed linkage". This phrase also gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up.---I'm impressed. Not only are you completely ignorant of biology, but you've invented a fake biology all of your own which even your fellow-creationists haven't heard of.

quote:

---

vacate
What does that mean? Reproduction, including DNA transmition, occurs from an internally derived factor? Could you be clear, because this makes little sense at all, and can hardly be said to 100% vindicate Genesis.

​

they never address the inconsistancies of their premies

---

A seed represents a part from a host, so it is internally derived, as opposed from external souces in nature. And reproduction, bodily features and heriditary data is passed on via the seed.

quote:

---

The new species cannot breed with the old species. Doesn't that about cover it?

---

How so - any and all life forms derived their imprints from its parental seed, rendering the different species millions of years ago issue superfluous. Also, a new specie means the destruction of any precedent one, so the issue of 'they cannot breed' becomes muted.

quote:

---

Do you have any math that supports your 99.9% or did you just make it up? What does the .1% include?

---

When we allocate an offspring acquiring its imprints from the host parent seed, it covers all known inheritences. There are other factors such as planetary environmental ones, which are generic and not related to inheritence: a population can inherit darker skin for example, by generic environmental impacts, which is outside the seed's source, but nevertheless transmitted via the seed.

quote:

---

I ask you the question - Is a pineapple still a pineapple after it has had enough mutations to no longer consider it the same species?

---

There are two issues here. One is that a pineapple results only from a pineapple seed - this is the immediate and total inheritence factor (Genesis). A secondary, alledged issue is that the pineapple originally emerged via cross-specie adaptation/leaps millions of years ago via mutations(Darwin): but we do not see this in the pineapple and seed phase - it is outside of the pineapple phase and is embedded in a non-pineapple premise of millions of years, whereby it is not a pineapple. There is no error that a seed performs the function described in Genesis. With regard your question, is the pineapple a specific specie or grouping, and whether this is derived from other species - we find that it still conforms with Genesis - at the point when we can call a pineapple as a pineapple: here it performs as per genesis. yes/no? Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

quote:

---

chirop

​

There's no need to think about it....

​

Ah. That explains how you reach your conclusions.

---

Is there really any need to think about it if a seed causes data transfer to be inherited from the parental host?

quote:

---

dr adequate
And this tells us that it took 6000 years after the point at which we started writing history.

---

No. The OT describes a past 2500 years before Moses, retrospectively. Writings emerged later - the picture writings (heiroglifics) appeared before the OT.

quote:

---

60,000 years ago, we were not writing history, hence we could not have gone to the Moon 54,000 years ago.

---

Exactly. But this also says that the first 6000 in the 60,000 period never elevated in mental prowess, which the last 6000 is manifestly a series of graduated elevation, culminating in man going to the moon. Further, unlike the last 6000 again - there are no graduated imprints of human development interspersed at different intervals in the last 60,000 years. Eg: we don't see community imprints at 55K; pyramids at 50K, nations and wars at 45K; in fact not a single histrical feature to represent speech humans and what it represents.

quote:

---

Are you saying someone is monitoring this situation - that 54,000 years ago, the population looked like it was going to overwhelm this planet - and this process was averted? And does this also satisfy the issue of mental prowess? Does'nt make sense!

​

No, I am not saying that. You are saying that. This is why it doesn't make sense.

---

What I am saying is, we should see a population increase for a 60,000 year humanity: we do not. The current world population of some 6B is the result of the last 6000 years - not 60,000. So in both, population, and mental prowess, we find a disfunction with the 60K claim.

quote:

---

What I am saying is that given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people, and that this is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account.

---

This does not impact - unless you are saying 60K humans did not reproduce?

quote:

---

This is why I said: "Given any amount of time, the world's population cannot reach 100 trillion, because the world cannot feed that many people. This is a constraint on population which you have failed to take into account."

---

I don't think so. It means reproduction is not a mute factor, and subsequently it means there were no 60K speech endowed humans - else the world population would not align only with the last 6000.

quote:

---

A 'seed' can include anything which is an internally derived factor.

​

The phrase "internally derived factor" gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up.

---

The same would apply to any sentence from your post. I used a made up descriptive term to express a point - its not a scientific term that it can be googled.

quote:

---

Of course you will find no mention of a "direct seed linkage". This phrase also gets zero hits on google. This is because it is a meaningless phrase which you made up.

---

Does that mean an offspring does not inherit via the parental seed - the relevent point here?