Early Hominem. Neanderthals. Evolution.

by solameguy12 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • solameguy12
    solameguy12

    So I grew up as a witness but I’m no longer active, I have some family that still practices very seriously. But I don’t want to ask them my question. But what does the Bible and teaching’s of JW’s say about early hominids? Just early extinct animals? Or is this how Jehovah made all humans; “creating humans by means of evolution”. Cause they say a day for him is a thousand years for us?

  • enoughisenough
    enoughisenough

    according to the Bible, animals were created according to their own kind.. and He created the man and the woman -and they reproduce according to their kind....Plain to read in the book of Genesis...

    now if you want to go down the evolution rabbit hole....I personally don't believe it. If a fish became a bird or however the theory goes, why are there still fish? and so on and on and on. ( ok, so some will think me ignorant...I am good with that.)

  • solameguy12
    solameguy12

    Not ignorant friend. Just different beliefs 😊 but what I understand is that as an animal or mammal goes through evolution (ie, slight changes over time to adapt to one’s changing environment) they stop once they no longer need adaptations to survive. And we still see this today. We have witnessed in our lifetime animals evolve. But there are just so many different hominids that over time look more and more like humans.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The WT used to accept evolution until Rutherford regressed to literalism. Anyway today they are playing a coy game of denying evolution but insisting all the worlds species came from a couple hundred "kinds" in just 3500 years. It's ludicrous of course. Key to this is never defining "kind".

    As far as hominid fossils, they dismiss them as deformed humans or apes. They dismiss the dating.

  • solameguy12
    solameguy12

    IMO it seems quite ignorant to ignore scientific data blatantly to fit one’s narrative. Like why not just say “oops we were wrong” and keep preaching what they think is right?

  • FFGhost
    FFGhost
    Like why not just say “oops we were wrong” and keep preaching what they think is right

    LOL. You have been away for along time.

    The GB admit they were wrong?

    It’s like asking someone standing on the South Pole, “now take one step to the south”. Just can’t be done,

    Likewise, the GB is absolutely completely unable to ever admit to a specific mistake. They can’t do it.

    They’ve gotten literally everything but the most trivial details completely, spectacularly wrong for 140+ years but the most they can cop to is a vague “we’re not infallible”. They are not physically capable of admitting error on a specific doctrine or policy.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    what does the Bible....say about early hominids?

    Alot. There are a few verses here and there that talk about the topic. Jesus (the man who walked out of a tomb) mentions them as "male and female" from the beginning. But, most of the history of early hominids are documented in the book of Genesis.

    Did you know that modern human DNA and Neanderthl DNA are genetically closer to one another than two chimps are to each other?

    Watchtower isn't the only one trying to control information.

  • TD
    TD


    From left to right:

    1. A. afarensis

    2. A. africanus

    3. H. habilis

    4. H. erectus

    5. H. heidelbergensis

    6. H. neanderthalensis

    7. H. sapiens sapiens

    8. H. sapiens

    AFAIK, JW's would draw the line between ape and human pretty far to the left. --Probably between #2 & #3 or between #3 & #4

  • neat blue dog
    neat blue dog

    Neanderthals were human, just a lost genetic strain all of which adapt over time like any creature. Even today there is huge variety in bone structure, shape and size but we don't call them all different species. There are artifacts of civilization such as tools, clothing and burial so they weren't stereotypical cavemen. I believe WT has mentioned this as well.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    A fish didn't become a bird all in one step (or in one generation). A fish didn't even become a reptile or an amphibian all in one step. Instead over numerous generations of offspring a group of fish came to have distant descendants which were amphibians, and some of those amphibians came to have some distant descendants which were reptiles [and other distant descendants of the amphibians were ones which had mammal-like features]. Some of those reptiles came to have distant descendants which were dinosaurs. Some of the dinosaurs came to have distant descendants which walked only on the hind limbs (and thus were two legged, and had two arms instead of two front legs) and thus were bipeds. Some of those two legged biped dinosaurs came to have distant descendants which had feathered dinosaurs (including feathers on the arms). Some of those feathered two legged biped dinosaurs came to have distant descendants which had feathered arms that were almost like wings. Some of the latter type of feathered dinosaurs came to have distant descendants which were birds. Scientists now consider modern birds to be avian dinosaurs, in other words, they now consider modern birds to be a type of dinosaur - the only type of dinosaur still in existence. Fossils of each of those categories have been found.

    Fossils were found of lobe finned fish. That kind of fish is not as well adapted for swimming, (unlike the majority of kinds of fish), but it is better adapted for moving between underwater plants and moving in the muck on the bottom of oceans. Later lobe finned fish had more bones in their paired fins, making their paired fins more like paddles with the beginnings of toes at the ends of the paddles. Some of their distant descendants were fish with legs. Fossils have been found for each of those kinds of fish. Some of the distant descendants of the latter fish were the first amphibians. The other kinds of fish continue to exist because they are better adapted for swimming in most sections of oceans and lakes, but the kinds with descended from the early lobe finned fish were much better adapted (than the others) to living on land. The reptiles, birds, and mammals (but mammals did not descend from birds, but rather from Synapsids) are distant descendants of the early fish which had legs. See https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-origin-of-tetrapods/ for a good illustration of this. If you are willing to read much longer articles then see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods and https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2 .

    It was asked why are still fish if birds evolved from fish. The answer is because fish are better adapted to water than birds, though some birds do spend some their time swimming under water. Certain types animals live in certain environments and certain other types of animals live in other environments.

    Humans evolved from ancient species of apes (not modern day species of apes). Regarding why do apes still exist today if humans evolved from apes, it is because existing apes are well suited for their jungle environment, which includes spending time climbing trees and being on tree limbs (in some cases even sleeping on tree limbs). Some ape species are also well adapted for swinging from branches, unlike humans. The orangutans and gibbons swing from branches and have long arms which are well suited for that.

    TD, you provided a great line up of skulls but I don't think the depicted photos of the skulls are to the same scale. The oldest skulls are much smaller than modern human skulls, but the photos make it look like they all have the same height from the bottom of the chip to the top of the cranium. If the photos were depicted to the same scale, the oldest skulls would be noticeably much smaller than modern human skulls.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit