Question about humans

@PenguinDust said:

You're forgetting about the aliens, man. I saw it on the History Channel. Aliens got up and biz-zay with the humans to make babies.

man those days where great, all that blue tail

@Carousel said:

how can the bible be a lie when God wrote it?

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

@Carousel said:

how can the bible be a lie when God wrote it?

He didn't. The Bible was written by Jesus's human followers during his life and after his death.

At least that's how the story goes anyway...

@Stonyman65 said:

@Carousel said:

how can the bible be a lie when God wrote it?

He didn't. The Bible was written by Jesus's human followers during his life and after his death.

At least that's how the story goes anyway...

no god wrote he told me so

@Inkerman said:

There was no definitive 'start' of homo sapiens as a species, rather a population of homo erectus gradually changed from the usual population, and eventual an individual we could call the first 'true' homo sapien born into this transitory group, and able to breed with them, producing the next generation, and so on and so forth until the transient group became the homo sapiens we recognise today. There was no 'adam and eve' style situation. However, we are all interrelated to one another at various stages of our ancestry.

Certain religions would disagree with that statement.

@Village_Guy said:

The bible is full of weird shit, considering that Adam and Eve only had sons, they had to be boning their mother pretty hard too.

Yes, you clearly know the Bible inside and out.

SCIENCE!

I'm not sure how I feel about GB turning into Yahoo!Answers.

@buft said:

@PenguinDust said:

You're forgetting about the aliens, man. I saw it on the History Channel. Aliens got up and biz-zay with the humans to make babies.

man those days where great, all that blue tail

The signs are still in the gene pool, man. They're all around us.

@Carousel said:

how can the bible be a lie when God wrote it?

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

@LikeaSsur said:

@Village_Guy said:

The bible is full of weird shit, considering that Adam and Eve only had sons, they had to be boning their mother pretty hard too.

Yes, you clearly know the Bible inside and out.

holy shit he lived 800 years? well it all makes sense now

I don't know why I'm bothering with this . . .

Populations evolve. There is no such thing as the first male and female human. Although many high profile creationists are so willfully ignorant that they will actually try to use this as an argument against evolution by natural selection saying, "What are the odds that a male human evolved from a monkey then a female human evolved from a monkey and then they happened to meet and were able to have offspring? It's impossible!" Fucking idiots.

You're one sad and strange object. I've been studying humans for years and I'm definitely not as confused as you are!

Fuck. Does this mean we're all Amish?

If we are all inbred imagine how smart Adam and Eve were.

@Village_Guy said:

The bible is full of weird shit, considering that Adam and Eve only had sons, they had to be boning their mother pretty hard too.

Go on... This time... with more detail...

Humans did potentially have a period where the species may have been as small as 2,000 people. Luckily, 2,000 people was genetically diverse enough not to screw us over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

If we are all inbred imagine how smart Adam and Eve were.

Gimme a sec....

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. (Genesis 3:6-7)

It took an apple to teach them that their junk was exposed. Clearly, they weren't the smartest people around (despite the fact that they were the only people around (sort of)).

@Village_Guy said:

The bible is full of weird shit, considering that Adam and Eve only had sons, they had to be boning their mother pretty hard too.

Actually, the Hebrew culture was very patriarchal, to the point that unless a female was critical to a male's family lineage (e.g. Ruth's inclusion in Jesus's bloodline) she wasn't mentioned in genealogies.

oh man...

That's it. You win this one, internet. I'm going to bed. -_____-

@Inkerman said:

There was no definitive 'start' of homo sapiens as a species, rather a population of homo erectus gradually changed from the usual population, and eventual an individual we could call the first 'true' homo sapien born into this transitory group, and able to breed with them, producing the next generation, and so on and so forth until the transient group became the homo sapiens we recognise today. There was no 'adam and eve' style situation. However, we are all interrelated to one another at various stages of our ancestry.

Certain religions would disagree with that statement.

I prefer to think we evolved from tadpoles. Or was it monkeys? Or maybe aliens? I mean, they all make sense.

@PenguinDust said:

You're forgetting about the aliens, man. I saw it on the History Channel. Aliens got up and biz-zay with the humans to make babies.

I'll support this theory before I'll support Adam and Eve.

lol I needed a good pick me up and this did just the trick.

This thread doesn't need to be an attack on religion, guys. You can still answer his question by saying "Yes, inbreeding was kinda a thing back in ye olden days." Even Biblical scholars will say as much.

https://www.google.com/images?q=therefore+aliens

well he is on to something. we are in the end all inbred with each other. now i cant remember how it goes but its the basics is if theres you then at means there need to be 2 to make you and 4 and 8 and so on. fuck it its complicated.

Wait, what? The man asks a simple question and the thread just goes off on ridiculous tangents from the start?

All you had to do was be courteous and give him a proper answer.

@Dark_Moolahs Yes, inbreeding occurred in the past, but it was more useful than it was problematic, as inbreeding fit with the needs of the time. In human beings, inbreeding increases a child's chance of expressing a harmful recessive allele, as parents with a close shared ancestor are more likely to both provide that same recessive allele to their child. It is believed that most human beings have harmful recessive alleles(such as blood disorders, mental deficiencies, physical deformities, susceptibility to certain diseases, etc) in their history, and so, populations which show a higher rate of inbreeding tend to suffer from increased instances of such genetic issues.

Inbreeding has happened throughout much of our human history, and it still occurs a decent bit in some cultures today. A lot of children born of inbreeding are fine, but the risk is considered great enough for many societies to strongly discourage it.

I think the wiring improved in a group or 3. They probably radiated out of Africa, but I would not be suprised someday on some locality. I think it was there in Africa as majority of it.

I almost feel the Neanderthals had to be told, because there's evidence they tried ocher, decoration and burial close to their end. I wonder if some Homo Erectus groups were prettty much eye to with the African spread, also. Different but not slow....

I think it is still happening pretty much accross the board now. We in turn dream science fiction of sentient machines... and gettting better at designing efficient computers, plus other tech, at a ratio I feel faster than expected.

THE LIZARD MEN ARE HERE. RUN TO THE BUNKERS.

@PenguinDust said:

You're forgetting about the aliens, man. I saw it on the History Channel. Aliens got up and biz-zay with the humans to make babies.

This is the best fucking thread.