Dna Of Early Man Linked To Modern Humans

[cdowis]

Researchers say ancient DNA suggests humans living 40,000 years in China were likely related to many present-day Asians and American Indians.

Scientists sequencing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA extracted from the leg of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave near Beijing say the Tianyuan human shared a common origin with the ancestors of many present-day Asians and indigenous American peoples, a release from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, said Tuesday.

Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago, but the genetic relationships between these early modern humans and present-day human populations had not yet been established, researchers said.

The genetic profile of the Tianhuan remains reveals this early modern human was related to the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans but had already diverged genetically from the ancestors of present-day Europeans, they said.

http://www.breitbart...122-174101-2300

Edited January 23, 2013 by cdowis

[changed]

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33 - 35)

33 And worlds without number have I created; ... But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them...

My personal opinion on it - new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds... it will happen in the future -

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

I think it has happened in the past too...

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[CV75]

http://www.breitbart...122-174101-2300

I wonder if they were able to save 10% or more off their tithing...

[BookofMormonLuvr]

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33 - 35)

33 And worlds without number have I created; ... But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them...

My personal opinion on it - new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds... it will happen in the future -

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

I think it has happened in the past too...

This view doesn't make sense to me in light of what the LDS Church teaches.

- God's work is one eternal round, The same thing that is happening to this earth has happened on other earths- past, present, and future.

- The course of this Earth is to become the Celestial Kingdom of the righteous who inhabited it.

So if this earth is following a similar pattern of earths before it, and it will become a Celestial Kingdom, how is it that we are built on the remains of a previous "earth cycle" (if you will)?

Does that mean that some creations never quite measure up and have to be destroyed? Maybe they failed to do "Temple Work" ("earth would be destroyed at his coming" type business?) If so, is there a possibility that we won't make it to the end and we will just have to be completely destroyed for another "cycle" to come and try to accomplish what we didn't?

Also, what happens to the souls of those who lived on a failed earth?

Edited January 23, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[changed]

- The course of this Earth is to become the Celestial Kingdom of the righteous who inhabited it.

Eden was a celestial kingdom of sorts... those who become Gods will make sacrifices, and start their own earth, so it seems like it could work as a cycle for me...

I also like to play around with the ideas of multiple dimensions:

that the Earth might be like an onion of sorts, with different layers of dimensions, that we are surrounded by more than we know:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:17) And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

perhaps Eden is a different dimension around the Earth? still here, still on the earth, just a different plane of existence - perhaps Adam and Eve came from this more perfect sphere to a lower world, a lower plane where things had become void, to start a new era - start a new world...

there are many different ways it could all work out, but I think it is important to realize that there are more worlds than ours - and that a new world - new heaven - new earth - does not necessary mean a new planet in a galaxy far far away... that multiple worlds could exist concurrently with one another, or spatially one on top of the other.

[Rob Osborn]

The remains aren't 40,000 years old, plain and simple. Next topic please.

[changed]

The remains aren't 40,000 years old, plain and simple. Next topic please.

Perhaps they are not, and perhaps they are - either way, it's not a matter of salvation. For those who have not yet gained a strong testimony, who would be discouraged from religious pursuits if they think religious people are anti-science, I think the best coarse of action is not to try and convince them that some areas of science are misleading, but instead to tell them the truth - that the creation processes are not fully revealed, that we do not have official doctrines on a lot of it, so everyone is free to form their own opinions about it.

I encourage everyone to watch President Uchtdorf's recent fireside on truth,

http://www.lds.org/b...013/01?lang=eng

and to also watch this TED talk:

http://blog.ted.com/...ulz-on-ted-com/

For the fundamental truths - that God exists, that He sent his son to die for us, and through him we might have eternal life - things within the 13 articles of faith, I no longer question because of Spiritual experiences, but as for the details of it all? we should not be dogmatic fundamentalists on things that are not actually fundamental to our beliefs. We need to be very careful about what truths the spirit has actually confirmed for us, and what we assume to be true through association - through our own trying to connect the little dots we are given.

It's ok to be wrong, to ponder different scenarios for how it can all work out, so long as we all rely on the Spirit for the final say, and don't destroy the basic foundation of what really is fundamental to our beliefs.

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[mfbukowski]

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33 - 35)

33 And worlds without number have I created; ... But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them...

My personal opinion on it - new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds... it will happen in the future -

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

I think it has happened in the past too...

When I was growing up it was common to use the word "world" to describe an area of knowledge or experience having nothing to do with being a synonym for "the earth" or "the universe".

There was a show on TV called "The Wonderful World of Disney" and no one for a minute thought that the person Walt Disney owned the earth. (Though subsequently though, arguably his Kingdom does )

I had a book called "The World of Geology" and other such uses of the word were common. The scriptures refer to a "new heaven and a new earth" to come forth right here on earth.

If there will be a "new heaven and a new earth" right here because these things will be re-defined in a new way, why couldn't there have been "worlds without number" right here on this little planet we hang around on?

Don't we all in some sense live in our own little "worlds" anyway?? And don't we actually say that sometimes?

[changed]

exactly. new world could equal a new age... worlds without number should include the possibility of many different ages, many different organizational periods here on our own earth.

[mfbukowski]

This view doesn't make sense to me in light of what the LDS Church teaches.

Of course it doesn't to you.

It doesn't make sense to any fundamentalist. That's why threads like this exist, because people manufacture conflicts where they don't exist.

The conflicts only exist in the definitions of words as you understand them.

[thesometimesaint]

When the Lehites sailed to the New World they probably didn't use the Starship Enterprise.

[Walden]

Eden was a celestial kingdom of sorts... those who become Gods will make sacrifices, and start their own earth, so it seems like it could work as a cycle for me...

I also like to play around with the ideas of multiple dimensions:

[media=]

that the Earth might be like an onion of sorts, with different layers of dimensions, that we are surrounded by more than we know:

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:17) And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

perhaps Eden is a different dimension around the Earth? still here, still on the earth, just a different plane of existence - perhaps Adam and Eve came from this more perfect sphere to a lower world, a lower plane where things had become void, to start a new era - start a new world...

there are many different ways it could all work out, but I think it is important to realize that there are more worlds than ours - and that a new world - new heaven - new earth - does not necessary mean a new planet in a galaxy far far away... that multiple worlds could exist concurrently with one another, or spatially one on top of the other.

Wow, that seems like quite a leap of speculation and the addition of unnecessary scenarios in an effort to explain something that is quite simply explained in the article......."This individual lived during an important evolutionary transition when early modern humans, who shared certain features with earlier forms such as Neanderthals, were replacing Neanderthals and Denisovans, who later became extinct," researcher Svante Paabo said.

It's that simple. No need to add speculation, leaps of logic, or other unnatural phenomena to explain a rather simple scientific deduction....unless of course, one needs to inject their "god" into the equation. Then leaps of logic and extracurricular explanations are indeed necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

There is no need to inject a God to explain his methodology. The results would be the same.

[changed]

Wow, that seems like quite a leap of speculation and the addition of unnecessary scenarios in an effort to explain something that is quite simply explained in the article......."This individual lived during an important evolutionary transition when early modern humans, who shared certain features with earlier forms such as Neanderthals, were replacing Neanderthals and Denisovans, who later became extinct," researcher Svante Paabo said.

It's that simple. No need to add speculation, leaps of logic, or other unnatural phenomena to explain a rather simple scientific deduction....unless of course, one needs to inject their "god" into the equation. Then leaps of logic and extracurricular explanations are indeed necessary.

I'm not the only one who thinks higher dims is a real possibility, many use it in various T.O.E.'s... and I thought Carl Sagan's description of a voice from within (seems to be both within and without imo, but that is close enough), and the ability of higher dimensional beings to see quite clearly into lower dimensions was rather interesting. I don't know if that is how it actually works, but it is certainly a possibility.

I guess that's one of the differences between religious people, and non-religious people, some are willing to ponder more possibilities than others. The universe is pretty big, old, and incredible...

For those who like to play with fun ideas:

http://en.wikipedia....mensional_space

http://www.scientifi..._3_beichler.pdf

http://www.dimension...g/Dim_reg_E.htm

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[changed]

http://www.ted.com/t...nt_developments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Subsequent_developments

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[Ron Beron]

I'm not the only one who thinks higher dims is a real possibility, many use it in various T.O.E.'s... and I thought Carl Sagan's description of a voice from within (seems to be both within and without imo, but that is close enough), and the ability of higher dimensional beings to see quite clearly into lower dimensions was rather interesting. I don't know if that is how it actually works, but it is certainly a possibility.

I guess that's one of the differences between religious people, and non-religious people, some are willing to ponder more possibilities than others. The universe is pretty big, old, and incredible...

For those who like to play with fun ideas:

Why do you need to resort to 4th dimensional shifts when Occam's Razor would suggest the simplest route is the more plausible, i.e., that people of similar species and DNA intermarried thousands of years ago and contributed to the human genome?

[Alvino]

Of course it doesn't to you.

It doesn't make sense to any fundamentalist. That's why threads like this exist, because people manufacture conflicts where they don't exist.

The conflicts only exist in the definitions of words as you understand them.

and the conflicts only don't exist in the definitions of words as you understand them. Now let's engage what the other person has in his/her mind, shall we, mf?

Edited January 23, 2013 by Alvino

[changed]

Why do you need to resort to 4th dimensional shifts when Occam's Razor would suggest the simplest route is the more plausible, i.e., that people of similar species and DNA intermarried thousands of years ago and contributed to the human genome?

people intermarried thousands of years ago - as in

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.?

All I know is that Adam and Eve fell from a sphere of perfection, a place where there was no death and no sin. that place could exist on another planet, or it could exist within this planet on another dim, at least JS seemed to think it was on this planet... it seems to be a case of two different histories happening at the same place, and higher dims would be a simple explanation for that. I don't view higher dims as being a complicated explanation, I see them as being elegant and simple - the logical continuation of a pattern.

too bad... they actually did find a particle, but they will perhaps always argue if it is the "God particle" or not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Subsequent_developments

"based on other particles that are still being understood long after their discovery, it could take many years to know for sure, and decades to understand the particle that has been found"

[cdowis]

So if this earth is following a similar pattern of earths before it, and it will become a Celestial Kingdom, how is it that we are built on the remains of a previous "earth cycle" (if you will)?

Does that mean that some creations never quite measure up and have to be destroyed? Maybe they failed to do "Temple Work" ("earth would be destroyed at his coming" type business?) If so, is there a possibility that we won't make it to the end and we will just have to be completely destroyed for another "cycle" to come and try to accomplish what we didn't?

Also, what happens to the souls of those who lived on a failed earth?

I have suggested that this was part of the fifth day of creation. Death was present during the creation process.

[mfbukowski]

It's that simple. No need to add speculation, leaps of logic, or other unnatural phenomena to explain a rather simple scientific deduction....unless of course, one needs to inject their "god" into the equation. Then leaps of logic and extracurricular explanations are indeed necessary.

Unless of course you don't take it as a scientific statement. Then you have theological discourse not conflicting with scientific discourse because the two are talking about different things.

It's kind of like talking about baseball and Quantum Mechanics and saying one disproves the other. They really don't have much to do with each other.

One is about hopes and dreams and what is important in life, the other talks about empirically observable phenomena and shared experience. If you can tell me how to observe empirically that it is wrong to murder people then maybe you will be on to something.

[mfbukowski]

For those who like to play with fun ideas:

http://en.wikipedia....mensional_space

http://www.scientifi..._3_beichler.pdf

http://www.dimension...g/Dim_reg_E.htm

Fun ideas indeed but I still think that this is barking up the wrong tree- that there is a scientific explanation in principle for God.

I don't think there is.

[blackstrap]

I wonder what the margin of error is for the date of 40,000 years old. Is it 40,000 +/- 100 years or 40,000 +/- 10,000 years ? How is this age arrived at? Carbon dating ? , from surrounding rock data ? , DNA mutation rates ?. What assumptions are made ? Scientists can often throw around time like bureaucrats throw around money. Is there a link to the actual paper?

[ERayR]

The remains aren't 40,000 years old, plain and simple. Next topic please.

Also did you notice the nice hedge word in there "Likely".

[yootaw]

The remains aren't 40,000 years old, plain and simple. Next topic please.

CFR

[changed]

...this is barking up the wrong tree- that there is a scientific explanation in principle for God.

I like to think God is more of a natural, real being, than some superstitious supernatural phenomena, and I expect that a real entity can be described through scientific explanations as well as anything else - but I will agree that I doubt there will ever be irrefutable scientific proof of God as I think that would take away our free agency... you can't choose to believe that the sky is blue if it is common knowledge... faith is an important part of the journey, as is the test to see where our mind takes us when we are given the choice, and we need uncertainty or there is no real choice... so science can take us up to the point of seeing (but not naming) things like the Higgs boson, but it is not allowed to go any farther... the choice needs to remain there for everyone. As more convincing rationalizations are put forth to disbelieve, equally convincing evidences are also coming forth, to keep the playing field equal I think, so those who are new and undecided can wallow in confusion in order to allow themselves the personal choice....to choose, not based on proofs, but on personal preference, through which true character is revealed. ... but for those who have already made their choice, it becomes more and more exciting, delving either into the one side, or into the other, because we are each allowed to go farther and farther down our own respective rabbit holes, if that makes sense... jmo.

This link is especially fun I think:

http://www.dimension...g/Dim_reg_E.htm

If I gave you a 2D map, could you visualize the 3D reality that the 2D image tries to represent? If you could see a 2D shadow, how much of the 3D object that makes that shadow could you understand? ... and if that shadow was in 3D, and was made from a 4D object, how well do you think you could visualize that 4D object? ... we know what some of the 3D shadows look like, we can turn them around, and see them under different lights... it's a fun rabbit hole to explore.

Edited January 24, 2013 by changed