"Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution"

@Rajk999
And if you believe that crap I have a GREAT bridge for sale right here in Manhattan......

@sonhouse said
@Rajk999
And if you believe that crap I have a GREAT bridge for sale right here in Manhattan......

Cool, was looking around for one. How much. Send an invoice.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's the whole point -- human evolution was way too short to be natural, which means it was not natural.

@bunnyknight said
That's the whole point -- human evolution was way too short to be natural, which means it was not natural.

So hominids had time to evolve into Neanderthals but not us?
Or were the Neanderthals early models later discarded by our alien / god creators?

@kevcvs57 said
So hominids had time to evolve into Neanderthals but not us?
Or were the Neanderthals early models later discarded by our alien / god creators?

Neanderthals had a much longer time to evolve than modern humans, but then again, how do we know for sure that even Neanderthals weren't a product of some genetic tinkering? And when modern humans popped onto the stage they most likely drove Neanderthals to extinction.

@bunnyknight

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

@metal-brain said
@bunnyknight

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

"Traces of human DNA found in a Neanderthal genome suggest that we started mixing with our now-extinct relatives 100,000 years ago."

It's already known that over 90% of human DNA also exists in apes and monkeys, so basic logic dictates that their statement is kind-of sloppy and somewhat pointless, don't you think? Another words, you can probably find traces of human DNA in a squirrel.

@bunnyknight said
"Traces of human DNA found in a Neanderthal genome suggest that we started mixing with our now-extinct relatives 100,000 years ago."

It's already known that over 90% of human DNA also exists in apes and monkeys, so basic logic dictates that their statement is kind-of sloppy and somewhat pointless, don't you think? Another words, you can probably find traces of human DNA in a squirrel.

DNA, not human DNA.
Human DNA is DNA that is distinctly human. We all share DNA to other life forms on earth. When life evolves it does not erase DNA critical to the process of life. It builds on it.

@metal-brain said
DNA, not human DNA.
Human DNA is DNA that is distinctly human. We all share DNA to other life forms on earth. When life evolves it does not erase DNA critical to the process of life. It builds on it.

Your point is valid, however, if traces of modern human DNA were truly found 100,000 yrs ago, I still wouldn't jump to any hasty conclusions. 100,000 yrs would make no difference to the implausibility of natural human evolution. Also, it could simply be that Neanderthals were an earlier genetic experiment using that same 'human' DNA.

@bunnyknight said
"Traces of human DNA found in a Neanderthal genome suggest that we started mixing with our now-extinct relatives 100,000 years ago."

It's already known that over 90% of human DNA also exists in apes and monkeys, so basic logic dictates that their statement is kind-of sloppy and somewhat pointless, don't you think? Another words, you can probably find traces of human DNA in a squirrel.

If so. I suspect it would be very faint.
I like to think of evolution as a giant tree.
Although everything evolved from the primordial soup,over Millennia,different species have followed different branches of the evolutionary tree evolving in their own way until eventually coming to a stop.
For example crocodiles haven't "evolved" for many years .
The homo sapien branch is probably still growing.