Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Radioisotope Dating Seriously Flawed
- Thread starter Bronzesnake
- Start date
Crying Rock
Member
The Barbarian said:
So how you interpret this part of the poll:
Barbarian
Member
God created man in present form: 44%
Man developed, with God guiding: 36%
Man developed without God guiding 14%
Other/ No opinion: 5%
The part you deleted in red. I interpret the poll to say half of all Americans say man developed from other organisms. Most of them say God was behind it.
How do you interpret it?
Crying Rock
Member
The Barbarian said:
I agree. "Developed" does not equal macrovolution. "Developed" also equals microevolution: H. erectus; H. Heidelbergensis; H.sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens.
Crying Rock
Member
jasoncran said:
Yes, and all extant individuals that live outside of Africa contain a significant portion of the H.s.n. genome.
Barbarian
Member
Actually anatomically modern humans didn't evolve from H. neandertalis. We both evolved from archaic H. sapiens, and they evolved from H. erectus, or perhaps from H. ergaster if it was a fully different species than H. erectus.
And they in turn evolved from Australopithecines, or a closely related genus.
My daughter likes to tease me, saying that I look like a Neandertal; I have the general body dimensions, a large nose, big head, and reddish hair. I look somewhat like my avatar, but usually I smile.
And they in turn evolved from Australopithecines, or a closely related genus.
My daughter likes to tease me, saying that I look like a Neandertal; I have the general body dimensions, a large nose, big head, and reddish hair. I look somewhat like my avatar, but usually I smile.
Crying Rock
Member
Who said that? However, according to the latest peer-reviewed research, H.s.n. and H.s.s. did interbreed.
Some would say this is evidence for the two being the same species.
I assume you refer to H. heidelbergensis. We have not recovered H. heidelbergensis DNA yet. But IF H. heidelbergensis, H.s.n. and H.s.s. could interbreed then are we still dealing with a single species, with microevolutionary differences?
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
Actually anatomically modern humans didn't evolve from H. neandertalis
Everyone familiar with the evidence. Neandertal DNA is too different from ours to be considered the same species. We are sibling species.
Which is not surprising. Lions and tigers can also interbreed. But there isn't much Neandertal DNA in modern humans.
It would be difficult to say so. The evidence shows that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals lived in the same area for thousands of years in the Middle East, with no sign of interbreeding. It seems that we could have interbred, but for some reason, did not. Possibly, both populations were specialized and like lions and tigers rarely met, even if they lived in the same geographical area.
Barbarian observes:
We both evolved from archaic H. sapiens,
Or some other population of archaic humans, such as H. ergaster, or perhaps even directly from H. erectus. There are very small distinctions between these species.
Are lions and tigers the same species? How about polar bears and brown bears?
Actually anatomically modern humans didn't evolve from H. neandertalis
Everyone familiar with the evidence. Neandertal DNA is too different from ours to be considered the same species. We are sibling species.
Which is not surprising. Lions and tigers can also interbreed. But there isn't much Neandertal DNA in modern humans.
It would be difficult to say so. The evidence shows that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals lived in the same area for thousands of years in the Middle East, with no sign of interbreeding. It seems that we could have interbred, but for some reason, did not. Possibly, both populations were specialized and like lions and tigers rarely met, even if they lived in the same geographical area.
Barbarian observes:
We both evolved from archaic H. sapiens,
Or some other population of archaic humans, such as H. ergaster, or perhaps even directly from H. erectus. There are very small distinctions between these species.
Are lions and tigers the same species? How about polar bears and brown bears?
Bronzesnake
Member
Gee let's see polar bears and brown bears hmmm I'm not sure...
Actually, it's a wee bit of a conflict when you use Classification systems which are based on unsubstantiated evolutionary faith.
There is a project in progress by creationsist who are putting together their own Classification systems based on reality.
Bronzesnake
Barbarian
Member
(C.R. suggests that organisms that can possibly interbreed must be the same species)
Barbarian asks:
Are lions and tigers the same species? How about polar bears and brown bears?
A creationist is a person who can't tell a brown bear from a polar bear?
Evidence. As Jason points out the evidence was found by a creationist. Hardly "unsubtantiated evolutionary faith." That mantra won't work.
Sounds like the baraminology project. Crashed and burned when it became apparent that any reasonable "baramin" definition would have men and chimps in the same "baramin."
Barbarian asks:
Are lions and tigers the same species? How about polar bears and brown bears?
A creationist is a person who can't tell a brown bear from a polar bear?
Evidence. As Jason points out the evidence was found by a creationist. Hardly "unsubtantiated evolutionary faith." That mantra won't work.
Sounds like the baraminology project. Crashed and burned when it became apparent that any reasonable "baramin" definition would have men and chimps in the same "baramin."
Crying Rock
Member
The Barbarian said:
Which is not surprising. Lions and tigers can also interbreed. But there isn't much Neandertal DNA in modern humans.
It would be difficult to say so. The evidence shows that anatomically modern humans and Neandertals lived in the same area for thousands of years in the Middle East, with no sign of interbreeding. It seems that we could have interbred, but for some reason, did not. Possibly, both populations were specialized and like lions and tigers rarely met, even if they lived in the same geographical area.
Barbarian observes:
We both evolved from archaic H. sapiens,
Or some other population of archaic humans, such as H. ergaster, or perhaps even directly from H. erectus. There are very small distinctions between these species.
Are lions and tigers the same species? How about polar bears and brown bears?[/quote:kl3u4zsx]
CR:
Barb:
No, I meant who made that claim? Who made the claim that H.s.s evolved from H.s.n?
Not according to Paabo et al. with Max Plank:
“…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variationâ€, Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€
http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=&f ... 725C951879
Barb:
CR:
"...Archaic humans such as Neanderthals may be gone but they're not forgotten — at least not in the human genome. A genetic analysis of nearly 2,000 people from around the world indicates that such extinct species interbred with the ancestors of modern humans twice, leaving their genes within the DNA of people today.
Using projected rates of genetic mutation and data from the fossil record, the researchers suggest that the interbreeding happened about 60,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean and, more recently, about 45,000 years ago in eastern Asia. Those two events happened after the first H. sapiens had migrated out of Africa, says Long. His group didn't find evidence of interbreeding in the genomes of the modern African people included in the study.
The researchers suggest that the population from the first interbreeding went on to migrate to Europe, Asia and North America. Then the second interbreeding with an archaic population in eastern Asia further altered the genetic makeup of people in Oceania..."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100420/ ... 0.194.html
"...'Neandertals are not totally extinct; they live on in some of us,' says Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and leader of the Neandertal genome project.
He and other geneticists involved in the effort to compile the complete genetic instruction book of Neandertals didn’t expect to find that Neandertals had left a genetic legacy. Earlier analyses that looked at only a small part of the genome had contradicted the notion that humans and Neandertals intermixed (SN Online: 8/7/08)..."
“...'After all these years the geneticists are coming to the same conclusions that some of us in the field of archaeology and human paleontology have had for a long time,' says João Zilhão, an archaeologist and paleoanthropologist at the University of Bristol in England. 'What can I say? If the geneticists come to this same conclusion, that’s to be expected.'..."
"...Comparing the resulting blueprints of the female Neandertals, who lived about 40,000 years ago, with those of five present-day humans from China, France, Papua New Guinea and southern and western Africa, revealed that people outside of Africa carry Neandertal DNA..."
"...It is not clear how extensive interbreeding was; the data are consistent with either a short period with a great deal of interbreeding or with a long period of little interbreeding, says Richard E. (Ed) Green, a genome biologist now at the University of California Santa Cruz and a coauthor of the new study..."
"...Since humans and Neandertals could interbreed, some people question whether the two groups are different hominid species. The question doesn’t hold interest for John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Genealogically, he says, the new study shows that many humans had a Neandertal great-great-great-great … grandfather. 'It’s impossible to talk about them as ‘them’ anymore,' he says. 'Neandertals are us'...â€
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... ith_humans
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/710
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
Green et al.
Science 7 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710 - 722
DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
Barbarian
Member
Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 936-939 (29 April 2004)
Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals
Fernando V. Ramirez Rozzi & José Maria Bermudez de Castro
Life-history traits correlate closely with dental growth1, so differences in dental growth within Homo can enable us to determine how somatic development has evolved and to identify developmental shifts that warrant species-level distinctions2, 3, 4. Dental growth can be determined from the speed of enamel formation (or extension rate)5, 6. We analysed the enamel extension rate in Homo antecessor (8 teeth analysed), Homo heidelbergensis (106), Homo neanderthalensis ('Neanderthals'; 146) and Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (100). Here we report that Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens shared an identical dental development pattern with modern humans, but that H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis had shorter periods of dental growth. Surprisingly, Neanderthals were characterized by having the shortest period of dental growth. Because dental growth is an excellent indicator of somatic development1, our results suggest that Neanderthals developed faster even than their immediate ancestor, H. heidelbergensis. Dental growth became longer and brain size increased from the Plio-Pleistocene in hominid evolution. Neanderthals, despite having a large brain, were characterized by a short period of development. This autapomorphy in growth is an evolutionary reversal, and points strongly to a specific distinction between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.
This might explain why we see so little evidence of interbreeding, even though the two species lived closely together in many cases. If developmental timing was changed for one, this could mean the death of a hybrid fetus.
A similar case exists with leopard frogs. They exist as a ring species, with the southernmost populations infertile with the northernmost ones, due to differences in developmental timing. If the intermediate populations were to be lost, they would form two species.
This idea is supported by the fact that early Neandertals looked much more like anatomically modern humans than later, more evolved ones.
Nature 428, 936-939 (29 April 2004)
Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals
Fernando V. Ramirez Rozzi & José Maria Bermudez de Castro
Life-history traits correlate closely with dental growth1, so differences in dental growth within Homo can enable us to determine how somatic development has evolved and to identify developmental shifts that warrant species-level distinctions2, 3, 4. Dental growth can be determined from the speed of enamel formation (or extension rate)5, 6. We analysed the enamel extension rate in Homo antecessor (8 teeth analysed), Homo heidelbergensis (106), Homo neanderthalensis ('Neanderthals'; 146) and Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (100). Here we report that Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens shared an identical dental development pattern with modern humans, but that H. antecessor and H. heidelbergensis had shorter periods of dental growth. Surprisingly, Neanderthals were characterized by having the shortest period of dental growth. Because dental growth is an excellent indicator of somatic development1, our results suggest that Neanderthals developed faster even than their immediate ancestor, H. heidelbergensis. Dental growth became longer and brain size increased from the Plio-Pleistocene in hominid evolution. Neanderthals, despite having a large brain, were characterized by a short period of development. This autapomorphy in growth is an evolutionary reversal, and points strongly to a specific distinction between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.
This might explain why we see so little evidence of interbreeding, even though the two species lived closely together in many cases. If developmental timing was changed for one, this could mean the death of a hybrid fetus.
A similar case exists with leopard frogs. They exist as a ring species, with the southernmost populations infertile with the northernmost ones, due to differences in developmental timing. If the intermediate populations were to be lost, they would form two species.
This idea is supported by the fact that early Neandertals looked much more like anatomically modern humans than later, more evolved ones.
Crying Rock
Member
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome
Green et al.
Science 7 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710 - 722
DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 936-939 (29 April 2004)
Green et al.
Science 7 May 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 710 - 722
DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021
Letters to Nature
Nature 428, 936-939 (29 April 2004)
Barbarian
Member
From your source:
Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.
And:
Genetic sequences from the three non-African modern individuals (from Papua New Guinea, China and France) were statistically more likely to be similar to Neanderthals than the sequences from southern Africa and West Africa. That suggests that some interbreeding took place after early humans spread out from Africa, most likely in the Middle East 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, Pääbo and his colleagues said.
But it wasn't all that much interbreeding. Between 1 and 4 percent of the human genome appears to have come from Neanderthals, statistically speaking. The researchers could find no specific string of code could be definitively traced back to them across the full sample. They could not point to any trait that we have inherited specifically from Neanderthals.
Ian Tattersall, an anthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the research, said the study meshes with earlier findings about the relationship between the two species. Just last month, for example, yet another team of researchers reported similar statistical signs of Neanderthal DNA in samples from modern humans.
"I don't think it changes the picture we already had, that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were functionally individuated entities," Tattersall told me. "This is what species are about. There may have been a bit of Pleistocene hanky-panky, but nothing that left a clear biological mark on either party."
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... some-of-us
Comparisons of the Neandertal genome to the genomes of five present-day humans from different parts of the world identify a number of genomic regions that may have been affected by positive selection in ancestral modern humans, including genes involved in metabolism and in cognitive and skeletal development.
And:
Genetic sequences from the three non-African modern individuals (from Papua New Guinea, China and France) were statistically more likely to be similar to Neanderthals than the sequences from southern Africa and West Africa. That suggests that some interbreeding took place after early humans spread out from Africa, most likely in the Middle East 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, Pääbo and his colleagues said.
But it wasn't all that much interbreeding. Between 1 and 4 percent of the human genome appears to have come from Neanderthals, statistically speaking. The researchers could find no specific string of code could be definitively traced back to them across the full sample. They could not point to any trait that we have inherited specifically from Neanderthals.
Ian Tattersall, an anthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History who was not involved in the research, said the study meshes with earlier findings about the relationship between the two species. Just last month, for example, yet another team of researchers reported similar statistical signs of Neanderthal DNA in samples from modern humans.
"I don't think it changes the picture we already had, that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were functionally individuated entities," Tattersall told me. "This is what species are about. There may have been a bit of Pleistocene hanky-panky, but nothing that left a clear biological mark on either party."
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... some-of-us
Bronzesnake
Member
Bronzesnake Wrote - Gee let's see polar bears and brown bears hmmm I'm not sure...
Bronzesnake Wrote - Actually, it's a wee bit of a conflict when you use Classification systems which are based on unsubstantiated evolutionary faith.
After all you would never just make stuff up right?
Bronzesnake Wrote- There is a project in progress by creationsist who are putting together their own Classification systems based on reality.
Bronzesnake
An evolutionist believes a bear is not a bear.
Bronzesnake Wrote - Actually, it's a wee bit of a conflict when you use Classification systems which are based on unsubstantiated evolutionary faith.
Oh, as long as you say so it must be truth.
After all you would never just make stuff up right?
Bronzesnake Wrote- There is a project in progress by creationsist who are putting together their own Classification systems based on reality.
Ya and your atheistic system crashed and burned right from the get go when it foolishly supported goo to you evolution.
Bronzesnake
Barbarian
Member
Bronzesnake Wrote - Gee let's see polar bears and brown bears hmmm I'm not sure...
Barbarian asks:
A creationist is a person who can't tell a brown bear from a polar bear?
Sounds like you're making up things for other people to believe again.
Barbarian observes:
Evidence. As Jason points out the evidence was found by a creationist. Hardly "unsubtantiated evolutionary faith." That mantra won't work.
Correct. I never make up stuff I post here.
Barbarian observes:
Sounds like the baraminology project. Crashed and burned when it became apparent that any reasonable "baramin" definition would have men and chimps in the same "baramin."
"Goo to you" is just a straw fairy creationists like to bring out when things aren't going well for them. Nothing like that is part of evolutionary theory.
Barbarian asks:
A creationist is a person who can't tell a brown bear from a polar bear?
Sounds like you're making up things for other people to believe again.
Barbarian observes:
Evidence. As Jason points out the evidence was found by a creationist. Hardly "unsubtantiated evolutionary faith." That mantra won't work.
Correct. I never make up stuff I post here.
Barbarian observes:
Sounds like the baraminology project. Crashed and burned when it became apparent that any reasonable "baramin" definition would have men and chimps in the same "baramin."
"Goo to you" is just a straw fairy creationists like to bring out when things aren't going well for them. Nothing like that is part of evolutionary theory.
Crying Rock
Member
From your source:
In other words the most current research suggests H.s.n. and H.s.s. could reproduce successfully.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... some-of-us
In other words the most current research suggests H.s.n. and H.s.s. could reproduce successfully.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... some-of-us