Could Adam have been the First Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
In modern scholarship, the Adam and Eve story is not considered "historical" at all. It is considered one religious person's interpretation or exploration of the creation of humans, rather than a textbook discussion. So, no, Adam would not be the first homo sapien. Historically, or rather, anthropology-wise, you would want to keep looking to the evolution of man as through "Lucy" and her ancestors and her descendants. But, I'm sure there are many literalists who will say yes to your question and I will get a thumbs down for daring to doubt the literal nature of the bible.
Why the use of the word "homophobic", because this means to hate "man", not the "PRACTICE" of sex by them?
Hmm...I suppose you could define the word in that way, depending on how you interpret the prefix "homo" (human as in "homo sapien" rather than same as in "homosexual") Regardless, much like the use of the word "gay" itself, people have naturally changed their perception of homophobia's meaning over time. Nowadays, it is mostly known to be an irrational fear or abhorrence to homosexuality, from which the prefix is derived. In most cases, homophobia is also applied to homosexual behavior. In that respect, the use of the word homophobia is qualified, even when referring to a fear of homosexual behavior. I'm not sure you really meant to ask a question here...were you perhaps looking for a rebuttal? Either way, I have a very clear one. The verse which contains the declaration which you quoted, that homosexual behavior is an "abomination," is Leviticus 18:22. As is the case with most books of the Old Testament, Leviticus' true Christian value is questionable. It certainly is not the word of God; none of the Bible is. Each of the Bible's writers put their own spin on what they perceived as God's message, though some of their books come to similar and veritable conclusions, such as the Gospels. However, that obscure, two-line verse in Leviticus has very little merit. Some respected scholars claim that this verse referred only to the priests traveling with Moses' group; others would say that it was simply a rule of the times which made it into the Bible. In any case, based on Jesus' doctrine of love, the real basis of our faith, there is no supportable reason to condemn the love between any two mature and consenting people, nevermind their sex. Pedophilia and bestiality cannot compare, since true love is impossible in either of those cases (children cannot understand love, and beasts are incapable of love, at least in the human sense) I hope this answers your question.
What are the subspecies of homo sapians?
As some of the answers shown here indicate, the question of human subspecies is 1) politically explosive and dangerous for scientists and 2) purely subjective, as are all subspecies definitions. For biologists, subspecies are geographical varieties with different frequencies or incidences of some, not all by any means, genes. When the British first traveled to Australia, for example, the people living there were quite different. Just as different as two different subspecies of giraffe. As with other sets of subspecies, they can interbreed. That is why they would not be considered to be separate species, just subspecies. Not all biologists like to use the subspecies concept, but it does work well where there are well-defined populations like painted turtles in eastern North America. In general, the distribution of genes in populations can be complicated, and can vary from gene to gene. We now know much more about human DNA and geography than we did when this question was posed. For example, Eurasian humans have some 'Neanderthal' DNA. It appears that this includes some genes associated with hair or keratin.
What is the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapien sapiens?
We're Homo sapien sapien. They big difference is brain size, build and teeth: Homo Sapien "The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins" Homo sapien sapien "Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile.... Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/spe...
If you believe in the scientific view that homo sapiens evolved 40 to 60 thousand years ago..?
You're still conveniently leaving out the different average lifespans before the the 20th century, events like the Black Death, the changes in agriculture, number of offspring in different cultures and different economic times, etc. Lots of things change these rates. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html I'll show you first how your calculations conflict with the Bible, and then how your assumptions about a constant exponential growth are wrong even if you take today's population and work backwards. >>Don't trust me, do the math yourself. If we take your assumption that the population doubles every 150 years, that the earth was created around 4,000 BCE, that the flood happened in 2344 BCE, and there were only 6 survivors, then the equation for the population at time t (measured in years since 4000 BCE), is P(t) = 6 * 2^( (t-1656)/150 ) This would put today's population at 3 billion. So much for your "math". >>I mean, there were only 2.5 billion in the whole world in >>1950 (see link) and 6.7 billion today, so you see how >>populations grow so fast. If we assume a perfect exponential growth model using those two figures, and for simplicity let 2344 BCE be year t=0, then P(t) = Ce^(at) where P(4294) = 2.5 x 10^9 and P(4353) = 6.7 x 10^9. You can do the math to solve for the constants and simplify, and show that the formula for this is approximately: P(t) = (1.731549x10^-22) (1.016849)^t Or, if you want to use t to represent the current CE year (so this year is t=2009 instead of t=4294) then: P(t) = (1.731549x10^-22) (1.016849)^(t+2344) But this doesn't match up with earlier records. For example, it means that during the Battle of Hastings (1066 CE), there were were only about 962 people in the WORLD!
Black people are Homo sapiens? Evidence please (not trolling)?
If it is true that this girl is 15 years old then I'd like to address her correctly; if not, perhaps someone else can glean something from my comment but I will speak (write) as though directly to her. My dear, you will waste your talent and insight if you do not enroll yourself into an advanced school- one that can guide you to higher levels of learning and understanding that will suit one of your intellectual nature and capacity. You are correct in your assumption and conclusion and scientists of varied arenas have concluded, more or less, the same as you have. Their books and clinical findings abound and are available, with the proper research of authors, on amazon.com. Do not expect to find many of these publications at your local book store because, like the media, many publishing companies are dominated by certain religious groups, so to speak, and political correction is the order of the day, NOT SCIENCE. The bell curve was an amazing work. You need to look into "A race against time", check under "Jared Taylor". The book will open more doorways for you as well. Do not have the pseudo-intellectuals who have answered you in the negative dissuade your reasoning, you are wise far beyond your years. In this disgusting age of political correction, you are very courageous. More power to you and DO NOT ALLOW YOUR INSIGHT to go to waste. You belong in SCHOOL and you belong to the small, but growing, group of intellectuals who will not stand for politically correct fascist pseudo science. THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH, and it often hurts. And, "the truth" is what you are in possession of. Keep it up, we need more young people like you.