Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

[Johny Joe Hold]

There is no explanation for the source of we humans except Adam and Eve. Everyone knows this but liberals and atheists keep making up reasons to hint there might be some other source.

A new "study" found that a group in New Guinea has a DNA that cannot be sourced to any other group. In this claim, then, they did not come from Adam and Eve.

My question is, where did they come from, the stork? Did some helicopter drop them in?

The answer is they came from Adam and Eve like the rest of us and no amount of phony science has shown otherwise:

Some Pacific Islanders Have DNA Not Linked To Any Known Human Ancestor

By Michael Gardiner on February 10, 2017

Researchers have now uncovered the DNA of a previously unknown group of hominids.

Chris Hyde/Getty Images

Children from the village of Hanuabada play cricket in the streets on February 24, 2012 in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

Most everyone knows that the islands of the South Pacific are some of the most remote and unique places on Earth, but a new study reveals just how unique they really are.
According to a report from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, researchers have found traces of a previously unknown extinct hominid species in the DNA of the Melanesians, a group living in an area northeast of Australia that encompasses Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands.
A computer analysis suggests that the unidentified ancestral hominid species found in Melanesian DNA is unlikely to be either Neanderthal or Denisovan, the two known predecessors of humankind to this point.
Archaeologists have found many Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Asia, and although the only Denisovan DNA comes from a finger bone and a couple of teeth discovered in a Siberian cave, both species are well represented in the fossil record.
But now genetic modeling of the Melanesians has revealed a third, different human ancestor that may be an extinct, distinct cousin of the Neanderthals.
“We’re missing a population, or we’re misunderstanding something about the relationships,” researcher Ryan Bohlender told Science News. “Human history is a lot more complicated than we thought it was.”
Next, read about the DNA sequencer capable

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

A computer analysis suggests that the unidentified ancestral hominid species found in Melanesian DNA is unlikely to be either Neanderthal or Denisovan, the two known predecessors of humankind to this point.

Wow! These scientists must think we're really dumb! Wow! Neanderthals a known predecessor of human kind? Wow! Just today I was looking over a museum collection and they have the following "fact"

Relationships with other species

While we are closely related to the Neanderthals, they are not our direct ancestors. Evidence from the fossil record and genetic data shows they are a distinct species that developed as a side branch in our family tree.

The usual idea is that they split off LATER as an adaptation to cold weather DIVERGING FROM not leading to "modern humans" and then as usual start going on about hundreds of thousands of years which, as we know from the genealogy of Jesus, do not exist. Certainly not in this context which would require Adam to have produced children who then had progeny some of which diverged, evolved into Neanderthals and became extinct while the rest continued on. Noah was not a Neanderthal and that could be the extinction point but for that to happen all the evolving would need to take place over very few generations and quite simply that is ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as this:

Interbreeding with modern humans?

Groundbreaking analysis of the Neanderthal genome (nuclear DNA and genes) published in 2010 shows that modern humans and Neanderthals did interbreed, although on a very limited scale. Researchers compared the genomes of five modern humans with the Neanderthal, discovering that Europeans and Asians share about 1-4% of their DNA with Neanderthals and Africans none.

This is what 4% looks like.

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

The unsuspecting uneducated types so susceptible to pronouncements of evolution with concepts of deep time and creatures not reproducing after their kind never think to question and must have very short concentration spans because I noticed something altogether different in another piece from the Darwinist priesthood:

Neanderthals: Facts About Our Extinct Human Relatives

Neanderthal expert Erik Trinhaus has long promoted the interbreeding hypothesis, but the theory really caught fire when a 2010 study published in Science magazine determined that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to modern human DNA.

This is what 99% looks like.

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Just think about that. My diagrams are only approximate but just going with sugar, imagine a cup of coffee having 4% sugar compared with one having 99% sugar. One would be sweet, the other would be a cup full of sugar with a teaspoon of coffee added. Just how moron do these scientists think we are?

100% MORON — that's what they think of us. As Christians we are prepared to overlook this so that we can witness to them, presenting the facts of Creation, the insalubrious details of Man's fall from Grace requiring many animals to be sacrificed and many heathens to be killed, the necessity of waiting for Jesus to be born so that He could be murdered to remove the stain upon all creation and how He will be returning to kill billions who have rejected His perfect sacrifice even though it was perfect.

But will they listen? No. The Bible explains why:

OBADIAH 1 . KJV . look up
3 The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?
4 Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the LORD.

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

Dear Miss Mitza,


Knowing that you are currently based in the general area I would like to call on your expert opinion.


With the close proximity of New Dunny to Australia is it not possible that these "people" are more closely related to the noongas? Picture below.
I know that years ago, before there were dirty left wingers, these natives were considered somewhat less than human.
If they are related does that not make the "people" in New Gunny fall under the same classification?
I think this may need further investigation. First thing is to find out if they drink Metho.


Please let me know what your thoughts on this are.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

We know that Adam was perfect. We know what he did wrong.

GENESIS 3 . KJV . look up
17 [God speaking] Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

Now we are less than perfect, other than Christians. God is clear than some peoples are lesser than others among the fallen and unredeemed but it's quite evident that some have degenerated more than others. One form of degeneration is seen in the herbs of the field selected for eating. Not all herbs survived in all locations after The Flood and just as koalas did not survive in the middle east neither were Icelandic birch trees able to survive in New Holland. Of course we understand that Noah took Icelandic birch into the Ark because the pest species which feed on them have survived. Similarly for koalas. Europeans are noted for toadstool consumption. Hallucinating wildly they rampaged across the regions they now occupy establishing wild orgy cults and pagan temples where anything went, such was the nature of their degeneration. Pacific islands were also inhabited by degenerates and they too see no reason not to get demon possessed and prance around muttering off their heads on anything poisonous that doesn't actually kill you and the herb of choice in this island was pituri. For more information search Duboisia hopwoodii.

Since it's scientists who analyse the stuff no two analyses are likely to be the same but the main ingredients seem to be nicotine and atropine plus a few other toxins. The preparation was vaguely similar to traditional coca processing in the Andes and the extract was exported to other tribes and across into other more northerly islands and where there is trade there is inevitably interbreeding. The relative potency could possibly be assessed by comparing degeneracy levels of the various tribes emerging after The Flood which would all be approximately the same on day one version2 but the demons involved would also be an influence.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

I remember being forced to read lezbean bull dyke Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa" while attending a vile secular university years ago. If there was one thing to take away from all her "cultural anthropology" ranting was the ease with which these "primitives" were able to fornicate with just about anything at anytime they felt like it. No doubt if these "scientists" bothered to check, they might find this "unique" DNA came from dolphins - or maybe from a Tasmanian devil.

As far as the children of Papua New Guinea playing cricket - what do you expect from adopting a gay English game. I rest my case.

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

As far as the children of Papua New Guinea playing cricket - what do you expect from adopting a gay English game. I rest my case.

As you can see below even monkeys can be taught how to play cricket. That really says a lot for the English, and for the residents of New Dunny. (Or should that be New Delhi, I always get the two mixed up)


YIC
TT

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

I remember being forced to read lezbean bull dyke Margaret Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa" while attending a vile secular university years ago. If there was one thing to take away from all her "cultural anthropology" ranting was the ease with which these "primitives" were able to fornicate with just about anything at anytime they felt like it. No doubt if these "scientists" bothered to check, they might find this "unique" DNA came from dolphins - or maybe from a Tasmanian devil.

As far as the children of Papua New Guinea playing cricket - what do you expect from adopting a gay English game. I rest my case.

Well in fact the "research" producing the 99.7% Neanderthal genes figure gives 99.8% chimpanzee. The link is in my earlier post. You know I used to wonder if the sons of God coming in to the daughters of men and getting children referred to Neanderthals. I won't go into the reasoning due to my being a wanton fool at the time but it involved the Y chromosome of Neanderthals. Any crossbreeding would be the other way; rather than Neanderthal brutes dragging human females away the fickle humans would be seducing Neanderthal females into the tribe for some reason.

GENESIS 6 . KJV . look up
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

But if we're more chimpanzee than Neanderthal could those daughters have been chimps? Could the giants have been gorillas? And would abandoned humans still find chimps attractive?

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

Dear Miss Mitza,

All this Neandering this and Chimping that is starting to make my head hurt. I am the way God created me. The same way Adam was so am I. 100% Created by God not some descendant of some union between meandering Neanderthals and Chimps.

YIC
TT

P.S. Why are we listening to, and discussing, the lunatic ravings of some liberal left wing evilutionist?

[James Hutchins]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

When God created the Earth and the Heavens, He had his 'posse' (that is what the kids call it believe) of disciples take notes and write down everything to make an instruction manual for us as God has more important things to do than answer the same questions over and over and over.
In a nutshell, God has already explained everything. Why people think they can second guess the creator and make up new explanations for things that God already told us the irrefutable facts about escapes me.
If my Porsche takes premium leaded fuel as it states in the owners manual, should I believe 'some random guy' to put in E10?
Would any of you ladies EVER substitute margarine when a recipe for Miss Daisy's pie calls for lard?
Academics need to get a real job, like praying to Jesus!

[BrotherLarry]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

When God created the Earth and the Heavens, He had his 'posse' (that is what the kids call it believe) of disciples take notes and write down everything to make an instruction manual for us as God has more important things to do than answer the same questions over and over and over.
In a nutshell, God has already explained everything. Why people think they can second guess the creator and make up new explanations for things that God already told us the irrefutable facts about escapes me.
If my Porsche takes premium leaded fuel as it states in the owners manual, should I believe 'some random guy' to put in E10?
Would any of you ladies EVER substitute margarine when a recipe for Miss Daisy's pie calls for lard?
Academics need to get a real job, like praying to Jesus!

Brother Jim,


As an academic, I hope everyone will cease painting us with such a broad brush. Dr. White and I are engaged in continual research regarding the truth of creation and thus far neither he nor I have been able to find any small thing that points to evolution as having merit whatsoever. The reason for these findings: GOD'S WORD.


In my creation science courses, the Holy Bible is the primary textbook. It contains factual and relevant information dating all the way back to creation (as you know). Brother Dr. Professor Elmer and I have chortled aloud (like schoolgirls) about the silly theories we have been able to rip to shreds when they do not coincide with the source of all truth, The King James Bible. I recall one day when we were having a Skype class meeting and we were reading about the links between certain birds and marsupials. We had to change the subject quickly so we didn't waste bandwidth. No matter how much it may begin to make sense at times, if you soundly reject evolution, you are more in line with the teachings of the Bible and, thankfully, the Landover Baptist Church.


All the more reason to keep a close eye on what is "taught" in our public schools - and an even better reason to keep children of True Christians(TM) out of public schools! Home schooling is safer, more effective, and when based on Christian teaching materials, guarantees future generations of believers in a flat earth, creationist beginning to our world. Praise God for those faithful parents who homeschool daily. (Especially those who use my curricula)


COME, LORD JESUS! (Rev. 22:12)
BrotherLarry

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

All this Neandering this and Chimping that is starting to make my head hurt. I am the way God created me. The same way Adam was so am I. 100% Created by God not some descendant of some union between meandering Neanderthals and Chimps.

I'm not here to propose "ideas" or "opinions" but am happy to post Scripture.

I CORINTHIANS 15:45 The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
look up .. context .. whole chapter .. kjv

In a sense, then, I am opposing false ideas when they are presented and a false idea is very easy to identify when we have The Truth. What was proposed in the OP, not by the poster obviously but by the scientists’ cause célèbre du jour, was that Adam should be replaced by an australopithecine or some ½-fish-½-monkey progenitor species. That is to say a 2nd Adam.

Blasphemy! Indeed there are two types of Adam giving rise to two types of body. The one is a physical body. This foul corrupted worm has all the appeal of a decomposing mollusc in God's eyes and I've already posted Scripture highlighting what caused this outcome for Adam and all his progeny. This body came first.

I CORINTHIANS 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
kjv

Does that make "the spiritual" an emergent property derived from "the natural" or as secularists would have it from the nervous system? The Bible says "No!"

Spiritual bodies come from Jesus. The spiritual element is a quickening agent, something to make us more alive, more than just a worm. We are renewed by this new creation brought to us in a new Adam as God explains in the passage I've quoted. It is NOT mediated by unknown tribes on Pacific islands; there is NO undiscovered Adam. Once the last Adam has been made known the opportunity arises to reject what one is being told. "Aha!" one might say, "but I know how consciousness emerges from the primordial dust forged in exploding stars, from stars which will explode in the future but which do not yet exist: I know that The Bible is false when it says that star creation is a complete and finished fact and I know that new Adams are just as much a lie as first Adams or Eves."

That secularist perspective, taking evidence from the eyes which are part of the natural worm body over evidence from Jesus who has brought the new spiritual body, is not without consequences. Even having heard The Gospel during which time they would be in the presence of The Holy Spirit, still they go with evidence from their own eyes.

MARK 9:47-49a [Jesus speaking] If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire
context .. kjv

In this way we are able to refute the claims reported with no need for resort to secular logic. The spiritual body by which we are made perfect is more than sufficient.

Praise Jesus!

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

Well in fact the "research" producing the 99.7% Neanderthal genes figure gives 99.8% chimpanzee. The link is in my earlier post. You know I used to wonder if the sons of God coming in to the daughters of men and getting children referred to Neanderthals. I won't go into the reasoning due to my being a wanton fool at the time but it involved the Y chromosome of Neanderthals. Any crossbreeding would be the other way; rather than Neanderthal brutes dragging human females away the fickle humans would be seducing Neanderthal females into the tribe for some reason.

. . .

But if we're more chimpanzee than Neanderthal could those daughters have been chimps? Could the giants have been gorillas? And would abandoned humans still find chimps attractive?

As many have pointed out in this thread, this DNA "theory" of "evolution" is always suspect, particularly with regards to the Bible (KJV1611). That being said, exploring this subject always leads to some kind of absurdity when taken to its logical conclusions.

This "Neanderthal" conundrum is one such example. According to "scientists" the Neanderthal had a low IQ, and that was the reason for their ultimate demise (although some still debate this). Your point is taken, but why would "humans" lure Neanderthal females, when it would make more sense that Neanderthal females would lure "humans" in order to steal their seed to become "smarter" in order to "survive" (taking a "hint" from Darwin). I can certainly attest to a point in my life before becoming Saved® numerous "hippie" type females lured me for no other purpose that to drink my seed.

As to humans ultimately finding chimps attractive, you can bet that's the next step for the George Soros "open borders" crowd after all the homers, lezbeans, mooselimbs, and communists are allowed to overrun our country.

[Nincompoop]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

You see, the problem with this is that after a few generation of inbreeding, your genes are completely fucked. At this point a human being would be completely sterile and incapable of breeding.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

You see, the problem with this is that after a few generation of inbreeding, your genes are completely piffleed. At this point a human being would be completely sterile and incapable of breeding.

If that was true, then we wouldn't be here, as "inbreeding," as you put it, was the LORD's preferred family planning back when Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his family, were the only humans who populated the entire earth. Or did you think the LORD just *poofed* thousands and thousands of men and women into existence, maybe to wander out from behind a tree while no one was looking? Like David Copperfield on a Red Bull energy drink binge?

[Didymus Much]

Re: Why We Can't Trust Academics in Science

You see, the problem with this is that after a few generation of inbreeding, your genes are completely piffleed. At this point a human being would be completely sterile and incapable of breeding.

Wouldn't that be a solution, instead of a problem?