I know you had to title the thread according to the link.
However... the article itself is contradicting itself.
The title says that they found another humanoid species. But then within the article you will find this:
So what makes the Denisovans and Neanderthals separate species from early humans anyway, given that all three groups co-habitated and had children
together? Green said:
Answering that question – How much DNA divergence is necessary to call something a new species? – is a very difficult one. We know there was
admixture between early modern humans and a population related to the Denisovans. We can see this in the genomes of individuals from Papua New Guinea,
as described in the paper. Thus, from this perspective they were similar enough to successfully mate with our ancestors. The sad, frustrating truth,
though is that there is no simple answer to how much divergence must be present to call something a different species or sub-species or variety or
Regardless of whether the Denisovans were another species, or just distant cousins, they are proof that humans have not always been alone among the
primates. Within the last 50 thousand years, we shared the planet with other intelligent hominids who weren’t quite human.
If we want to know what humanity might look like 50 thousand years from now, after we’ve colonized space and spent millennia evolving in
dramatically different environments, we should look back to the Denisovans’ humble cave in Siberia. There, three very different types of human
beings met after a long time apart. And formed a community together.
So, I think you should note a few things.
They cannot agree that Neanderthals are actually a different species; neither can they agree that Denisovans are a different species. In fact, the
very last two lines I quoted from that source are : "There, three very different types of human beings
met after a long time apart. And formed
a community together."
Anyone who has looked into the genome at all knows that the genome differs among the races on the earth today. As well, we know that all the races
have no problem mating with each other today! Is this any different? We are not different "species". We are all humans. We have different
features. So they found a new race is what they found. Or so they think. They said that the Neanderthals appear in the Europe area and the
Denisovans appear in the eastern areas.
I mean... I don't know, but when I take a look at europe, I see anglo features and when I look at asia I see mongolian features. Am I right?
Anyhow, I have a greater point here.
For all of you who think that proving changes in the DNA are proof of no God, you're just not even capable of having a good discussion anyway. You
need more work.
But for those who are open to learning; you do realize that humans used to live close to 1000 years of age. I mean, imagine all the crazy growth and
changes that would happen to the body. And remember how the earth was so drastically changed after the flood - such that Noah and his sons and then
their descendants gradually stopped living quite as long but eventually a human's maximum life span decreased to around about 120 years of age.
Imagine all the mutations that must have happened as a result of the great flood. Imagine the impact on the earth and the earth's ability to fight
radiation. Imagine how the earth probably changed on its axis, developed a wobble, new weather and environments...
All the things that would change the way a human would grow and develop. The splitting of the land into the continents today... the completely
different eco-systems that would eventually give rise to the different races of today.
I'm just saying. There is a lot that you evolutionists have chosen to avoid in the Bible that might actually help you to predict some of your
discoveries. Why don't you take a stab at trying to make some connections and discerning things.
And what have you to lose regardless of your current bias? Is your time so valuable that you cannot spend time doing a little "crazy" research
instead of incessantly posting the same arguments over and over and coming to no agreement because both sides believe they don't need to dive deeper
to discern the reality around them; but you both ironically argue till you are blue in the face; wondering why the other side won't listen?
Here's some advice: if you're blue in the face, you're the one that needs to do the research.
I just got a funny picture in my mind of a couple of oompa-loompas debating with each other about some random nonsense. Haha.
Good day, Denisovans of ATS. I mean Denizens.