[_ Old Earth _] Denisovan/Neanderthal/Sapien sapiens

[Barbarian]

Does not make any sense. It IS a normal characteristic of humans but that does not exclude other creatures who may exhibit or tend toward it. You seemed to be trying to make me say something I had not said.

So we have two genera of bipedal apes (Australopithecus and Homo). And Australopithecines are transitional between Homo and quadrupedal apes, in a large number of characteristics.

Why not just accept what the evidence says?

 

[brother Paul]

They were not saying they were the same thing
Then why did they bring it up? Sorry, too late to erase the tape.

No! You just did not listen to the tape. They are saying HUMANS ARE NOT APES....and....HUMANS ARE NOT MONKEYS....

The obfuscation waltz. A creationist favorite.

That's strange because EVERY person and citation I mentioned are from scientists! Maybe you just have a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you here a "creationist"? I guess that makes it easy for you to ignore, dismiss, or re-interpret the evidence and opinion of your peers so you can maintain the hypothetical opinion of one group.

You keep trying to make this about humans, and monkeys or apes, but the OP is about three obvious varieties of early humans (according to the scientists I have noted) that are all the same species (Homo Sapien).

Their time was about twice our current time. So probably it would be presumptuous to call them "unsuccessful."

Are there any now among us? Point made...their line ceased to continue.

 

[brother Paul]

So we have two genera of bipedal apes (Australopithecus and Homo). And Australopithecines are transitional between Homo and quadrupedal apes, in a large number of characteristics.

Why not just accept what the evidence says?

The evidence only says that Austral (partially so) and Homo-Sapiens (totally) were creatures that exhibit the anatomy that supports bi-pedalism it says NOTHING about them being two genera of Ape (one is one is not) OR that one became the other (the latter being a hypothesis imposed on the data...a way of explaining the data that makes the hypothesis appear correct)

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence only says that Austral (partially so) and Homo-Sapiens (totally) were creatures that exhibit the anatomy that supports bi-pedalism it says NOTHING about them being two genera of Ape

Genetic data says that humans are, with chimpanzees, a taxon within the apes. So are Australopithecines, which clearly belong in the same tribe or at least family. If we ever manage to locate and sequence any Australopithecine DNA, it will confirm the theory again.

OR that one became the other (the latter being a hypothesis imposed on the data...

Rather, the data confirmed the earlier prediction that humans and chimpanzees would be most closely related. Such confirming evidence is considered compelling in science. As you know, hypotheses that make such predictions that are later verified, are considered to be theories, which is as strong as things get in science.

The postmodernist claim that truth is whatever we put it out to be, has no logical foundation whatever.

 

[Barbarian]

They were not saying they were the same thing

Barbarian asks:
Then why did they bring it up? Sorry, too late to erase the tape.

No! You just did not listen to the tape. They are saying HUMANS ARE NOT APES

As you know, genetic data says humans and chimps comprise a taxon within the apes.

...and....HUMANS ARE NOT MONKEYS....

Why do creationists always bring up the idea that humans are monkeys? No scientist thinks so. Either they want to obfuscate the differences between monkeys and apes, or they hope to convince others that scientists think humans or monkeys.

The obfuscation waltz. A creationist favorite.

Maybe you just have a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you here a "creationist"?

I'm quite familiar with the quote-mining game. It's what creationists do.

You keep trying to make this about humans, and monkeys or apes, but the OP is about three obvious varieties of early humans (according to the scientists I have noted) that are all the same species (Homo Sapien).

After scientists were able to sequence Neandertal DNA, it became impossible for creationists to call them "ape-men" any longer. They are not sufficiently evolved to be a separate species.

Barbarian, regarding the "failed Neandertals."
Their time was about twice our current time. So probably it would be presumptuous to call them "unsuccessful."

Are there any now among us?

They could have made the same argument in Europe for tens of thousands of years. H. sapiens sapiens was around, but lacking the adaptations and technology of the Neandertals, could not survive in Ice Age Europe until much later.

Point made...their line ceased to continue.

And in a few hundred thousand years, we will have the right to feel superior to them. Not until.

 

[brother Paul]

Genetic data says that humans are, with chimpanzees, a taxon within the apes.

You know genetic data does not speak of Taxons (these are intelligently designed categories...i.e., made up by man for the convenience of those holding this view,,,nothing more)

If we ever manage to locate and sequence any Australopithecine DNA, it will confirm the theory again.

Yes that they are apes and that we are all physically primates...(yawn!)

After scientists were able to sequence Neandertal DNA, it became impossible for creationists to call them "ape-men" any longer. They are not sufficiently evolved to be a separate species.

So apart from your false creationist accusation are you admitting they are all the same species? If you are we are done here....since that was the point of discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

Genetic data says that humans are, with chimpanzees, a taxon within the apes.

You know genetic data does not speak of Taxons

It does. Specifically, it says that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor, after that common ancestor diverged from other apes. That is what scientists call a taxon.

(these are intelligently designed categories...i.e., made up by man

So are hurricanes and hailstorms. What we call them, or how we classify them does not change what they are. C'mon.

Barbarian predicts:
If we ever manage to locate and sequence any Australopithecine DNA, it will confirm the theory again.

Yes that they are apes and that we are all physically primates...

No. It will confirm that all three genera have a common ancestor which diverged from other apes. And we know this is accurate, because we can test it on organisms of known descent. The creationist obfuscation dance goes on...(yawn!)

Barbarian observes:
After scientists were able to sequence Neandertal DNA, it became impossible for creationists to call them "ape-men" any longer. They are not sufficiently evolved to be a separate species.

So apart from your false creationist accusation

There is widespread disagreement on the part of creationists, about which hominins are human and which are not. Since there is a continuous spectrum of human-like skulls, it's not surprising that they can't come to an agreement. Although almost all creationists now accept evolutionary scientists' findings that Neandertals are related to us and are of our own species, they continue to widely disagree about other humans and hominins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Oddly, although they accept the genetic evidence showing that Neandertals and humans had a common ancestor, they steadfastly refuse to accept the same evidence showing that chimpanzees and humans had a common ancestor within the apes.

As you learned, humans and Neandertals are sufficiently alike genetically to be considered a single species. Some creationists, of course, will argue that the group is an intelligently-designed category, and therefore not reflective of reality. You know how that goes.

I am pleased that you, (and now a majority of creationists) have accepted the findings of evolutionary biologists, who have determined that Neandertals and anatomically modern humans are subspecies of Homo sapiens. If they would just accept the same evidence applied to humans and other apes, they would be in agreement with God's creation.

 

[brother Paul]

Specifically, it says that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor, after that common ancestor diverged from other apes. That is what scientists call a taxon.

You have the key here…it is what “Scientists call” the genes do not speak they have no mouth…no power to say anything! It also does not “SAY” humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor….”Scientists” say this is what we can see “means” (hypothesis based interpretation).

So are hurricanes and hailstorms.

Thanks you made my point…both are storms but each is quite different….

Anyway get back to the species issue...”Scientists” have renamed the three Homo sapien Neanderthalis, Homo sapien Altai, and Homo sapien Sapiens….are they all the same species (but different varieties) or not? You have indicated you agree so thread closed!

Some creationists, of course, will argue that the group is an intelligently-designed category, and therefore not reflective of reality

No “creationists” I ever heard of argue “the group is an intelligently-designed category” but I have heard a number of scientists (as demonstrated) intelligently design “categories” (you once again tried to rearrange my words to say something not even implied)

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the genetic data:
Specifically, it says that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor, after that common ancestor diverged from other apes. That is what scientists call a taxon.

You have the key here…it is what “Scientists call” the genes do not speak they have no mouth…

But as you learned, the genetic data verified prediction of common descent made earlier on the basis of other evidence. Such verified predictions are compelling.

It also does not “SAY” humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor…

It says exactly that, precisely as a pattern of burn marks on a wooden floor says that an accelerant was used to set a fire. There's no point in denying any of this.

(argument that taxa have man-made names)

Barbarian chuckles:
So are hurricanes and hailstorms. What we call them, or how we classify them does not change what they are. C'mon.

Thanks you made my point…

Nope. I took the liberty of restoring the context. Sorry about that.

both are storms

Just as families and genera are both taxa.
but each is quite different…. You seem to have made my point for me, instead.

(Barbarian reminds Brother Paul that evolutionary biologists have determined that modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans are all subspecies of H. sapiens)

You have indicated you agree

More importantly, as I showed you, even many creationists now agree.

Barbarian observes:
Some creationists, of course, will argue that the group is an intelligently-designed category, and therefore not reflective of reality

No “creationists” I ever heard of argue “the group is an intelligently-designed category”

You just argued that taxa are exactly that:

You wrote:

You know genetic data does not speak of Taxons (these are intelligently designed categories...i.e., made up by man for the convenience of those holding this view,,,nothing more)

Now you're rejecting what you said? (BTW, the plural of "taxon" is "taxa")

 

[brother Paul]

No No and NO you will not succeed at diversion using this very typical and predictable technique...stick to the topic

 

[brother Paul]

F. Clark Howell, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of integrative biology and co-director with Tim White of UC Berkeley's Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies believes “these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed” (UC Berkley News, “160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans”, R. Sanders, June 2003).


Many are rallying this interpretation (not all) but if one looks at the actual evidence it simply cannot be true. Everyone is saying these are the earliest “modern humans” by this I assume they mean “Homo Sapiens” not Homo Sapien sapiens! Though they pre-date the main bodies of Neanderthals we know of so far (rhetorically posed as “most”) we have evidence of Neanderthal using sophisticated techniques for making pitch that pre-date these alleged Homo Sapiens by at least 100,000 years.


IMO they have made this intentional misrepresentation (their interpretation) so they can call this an intermediary form between other hominids and homo sapien. But it fails if one observes the finds we have objectively because homo sapien obviously pre-existed these alleged “modern humans”!


Tim White (as predictively expected) says "We've lacked intermediate fossils between pre-humans and modern humans, between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, and that's where the Herto fossils fit”

(pre-human actually only referring to any fossil of any creature that existed before humans but planting the innuendo into the minds of the inundated masses that this forms a link to apes like Habalis and Australopithicus)


One that really stirs the pot (though from a later period) is Australia’s Mungo Man…he is very much a Homo Sapien with a quite modern anatomy and cranium but has zero linkage genetically to “Out of Africa” man. His mitochondrial DNA is absolutely distinct and he bears no connection to Euro-Asian Neanderthals either. His line died out about 60,000 years ago but they demonstrate (by ritualized burial) that they were socially conscious individuals. The point is, here is yet another “man” not of African origin yet the rhetoric continues to be imposed on our students. This is not only bad reporting in science but dishonest in education showing us there is a degree of intentional indoctrination being mixed in.

 

[Barbarian]

F. Clark Howell, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of integrative biology and co-director with Tim White of UC Berkeley's Laboratory for Human Evolutionary Studies believes “these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed” (UC Berkley News, “160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans”, R. Sanders, June 2003).

Since most of us carry Neandertal genes, it's a matter of fact that those of us who do, are descended from Neanderrtals. However, the fact that very early Neandertals looked more like anatomically modern humans (e.g. Mt. Carmel populations) makes it pretty clear that our particular subspecies is not an offshoot of Neandertals. I don't know of any scientist who thinks so. Instead of quote-mining, how about showing us something from the literature?

It's extremely difficult to determine where later H. erectus leaves off, and where archaic H. sapiens begins. Can you give us a set of criteria by which to effectively separate the two, with you evidence for that?

One that really stirs the pot (though from a later period) is Australia’s Mungo Man…he is very much a Homo Sapien with a quite modern anatomy and cranium but has zero linkage genetically to “Out of Africa” man. His mitochondrial DNA is absolutely distinct and he bears no connection to Euro-Asian Neanderthals either.

You've been misled on this...

The researchers sequenced the Aboriginal man's genome — his complete genetic blueprint — and compared it with those from Chinese, Europeans and Africans. By looking at differences, caused by mutations in the DNA code, the researchers were able to infer these populations' relationships to one another. (The more closely the groups are related the fewer differences their DNA should show.)


They found unique mutations in the Aboriginal man's DNA, indicating that his ancestors must have branched off from Europeans and Asians before these two groups split.


"So when Europeans and Asians were a single population, Aborigines' ancestors were already on their way to Australia," Rasmussen said.


However, all three groups showed roughly the same genetic distance from the Africans, indicating they all had split from Africans long ago, he said.


To check the accuracy of the results, the scientists used a total of three Han Chinese genomes, which they sequenced, as well as pre-sequenced genomes from two Europeans and two Africans belonging to the Yoruban people. They found that switching the individuals used in the comparison made little difference in the results, Rasmussen said.


"We are selecting a few individuals to represent whole populations. That does give some limitations — the more genomes we could add, the more certainty we could add and the more detail we could add," he said.


Small changes in our DNA code occur at a constant rate, so using this rate, the scientists were able to calculate an approximate time when the Aboriginal ancestors split off from the ancestral Eurasian population: somewhere between 62,000 and 75,000 years ago.


This calculation fits with the archeological evidence provided by Mungo Man, the name given to human remains found near Lake Mungo in Australia and dated to about 45,000 years ago, since the split would have occurred before the arrival of the Aborigines' ancestors in Australia, Rasmussen said. Based on genetic data, it is impossible to say where, geographically, the split occurred.


They also found evidence that the Aborigines' ancestors had mixed with archaic humans called Denisovans, whose remains were found in a cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia.
http://www.livescience.com/16182-au...ome-human-dispersal.html#sthash.nntii3aa.dpuf

The question is mainly whether or not various member of Homo could interbreed. Given that hybrids between members of the same genus is very common in mammals, it's not surprising that it might be true of our lineage.

 

[brother Paul]

Yes to the Aborigines data and their mixing with Denisovans but not Mungo Man. As for him Australian National University rersearcher Greg Adcock (and team) analysed the mitochondrial DNA. Without doubt Mungo Man has a genetic lineage both older and distinct from the alleged common human ancestor from Africa. Plus the data confirmed by stratigraphy puts them there at 62,000 years ago not 45,000...yet some date the fossils at 40,000 and yet another team of paleoanthropologists from the Australian National University in 1976 dated them to as early as 28,000 years (Oh well! I guess they cannot decide which date fits the hypothesis yet.)

The point is genetically he is not "out of Africa"

 

[Barbarian]

Yes to the Aborigines data and their mixing with Denisovans but not Mungo Man.

You've been misled. Read on...

As for him Australian National University rersearcher Greg Adcock (and team) analysed the mitochondrial DNA. Without doubt Mungo Man has a genetic lineage both older and distinct from the alleged common human ancestor from Africa.

This is a sound analysis. The evidence from DNA of today’s Aboriginal populations, as well as those from the past recovered through ancient DNA is revealing new insights into the complexity of the First Australians population history. What we see in the DNA is evidence of an unbroken Aboriginal lineage for well over 2,000 generations.


Attempts to recover the ancient DNA from Mungo Man reported over ten years ago were subject to considerable critique. Consensus generally agreed that the reported results probably represented contaminated DNA, and not ancient DNA dating back over 40,000 years. The Elders of the Mungo Lake today have given consent for Griffith University researchers, under the direction of Professor David Lambert, to see if ancient DNA can be recovered from Mungo Man and numerous other individuals from the ancient Willandra Lakes system. This work is currently underway but really is at the edge of what is possible in ancient DNA studies.


The anatomy of the very first physical records for the First Australians also complements this picture. We see a morphology in the remains of Mungo Man and Mungo Woman, from some 42,000 years old, that would not look out of place in Aboriginal Australian populations today. Mungo Man and Woman are fully modern people in every sense of the word, and indeed represent some of the earliest modern human remains within the whole Australian-Asian region. Europe at this time was still the domain of the Neanderthals.

Finally, the study cited by Senator Leyonhjelm’s spokesperson seems to be misquoting the research of UQ Professor Hamish McGowan. While Prof McGowan does note that climatic conditions in the region around the Gwion Gwion rock art complex in northwest Australia probably meant that Aboriginal people abandoned the region for 1,500 years, he does not suggest the region was populated by an entirely different non-Aboriginal population. As noted above, there is no evidence to support such a proposal.
http://theconversation.com/factchec...in-australia-prior-to-aboriginal-people-43911

 

[brother Paul]

Very interesting. I will await further results, however the link at the end here only mentions Mungo once and the debate continues. The claim that SOME believe the DNA analysis could have been tainted by contact with the researchers however is absurd because this tainting would have produced a closer match to US today and there would have been lineal association.

There are two man ways DNA analysis is corrupted...one is intentionally like when early Neanderthal researchers eliminated strands or sections that were like modern humans as tainted to imply a greater difference that over time more honest scientists proved wrong, the other results from computer simulations based on the Polymerase Chain Reaction process where smaller sections are recombined, or combined for the first time where only sections are available, and may or may not be placed in the incorrect order, or pieces missing may be assumed by the researcher or the simulation program, etc.

So they may find out something more (And I eagerly await) but I doubt that the tainting by the modern humans handling the samples is a legitimate excuse for the differences (these were scientists being very careful with necessary protocols and NOT planning to find what they did)

 

[brother Paul]

While the Belgian Cave Neanderthal demonstrates community existence around 100,000 years ago, and the Altamura skeleton from around 170,000 years ago, the oldest known human DNA found revealed genetic material from the bones which are a combination Neanderthal /Denisovans living in what is now the Sima de los Huesos in Northern Spain. It is generally accepted that we can undeniably say we have found a 400,000 year old HUMAN thigh bone (Middle Pleistocene).


Matthias Meyer, a molecular biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, tells us that in this cave we have found the bones of no less than 28 individuals dating anywhere from 125,000 to 780,000 years ago. However, according to Meyer and his team, upon closer look, the Mitochondrial DNA studies reveals a shared more common female ancestor with Denisovans with the more Neanderthal lineage not splitting from them until about 700,000 years ago.


Therefore Homo sapien Altai (Denisovan) and Homo sapien Neandertalis demonstrate their interactive social and sexual presence in Europe over a half million years ago which is many millennia before the alleged Sapien-sapiens even emerged in Africa.


Neanderthals were people who according to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum “made and used a diverse set of sophisticated tools, controlled fire, lived in shelters, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals and also ate plant foods, and occasionally made symbolic or ornamental objects. There is evidence that Neanderthals deliberately buried their dead and occasionally even marked their graves with offerings, such as flowers. They go on to tell us that “No other primates… practiced this sophisticated and symbolic behavior.” In fact no other does all the way up to this time!


I am waiting with excitement as to how “scientists” will come up with a (fabricated or allegedly inferred) “narrative” that can explain how two distinct mitochondrial DNA lineages sprung out from one group (an alleged common ancestor), one leading more specifically to Denisovans, the other leading more specifically to Neanderthals. Merely claiming that it did or must have (even by consensus) is not adequate “science”!


Apparently, these “scientists” suggest this may indicate a currently unknown human lineage (which would have to be even older) brought Denisovan-like mitochondrial DNA into the this region, and possibly also somehow spread to the Denisovans we now know of found in Asia.


A Homo sapien lineage older than 700,000 years? Wow! Now that, if found, would clearly upset the proverbial 195,000 year emergence hypothesis based theory apple cart. Meyer said "The story of human evolution is not as simple as we would have liked to think. This result is a big question mark. In some sense, we know less about the origins of Neanderthals and Denisovans than we knew before."

 

[Barbarian]

While the Belgian Cave Neanderthal demonstrates community existence around 100,000 years ago, and the Altamura skeleton from around 170,000 years ago, the oldest known human DNA found revealed genetic material from the bones which are a combination Neanderthal /Denisovans living in what is now the Sima de los Huesos in Northern Spain. It is generally accepted that we can undeniably say we have found a 400,000 year old HUMAN thigh bone (Middle Pleistocene).

Much older humans remains are known, just not that particular species. You seem to be unclear as to which of these was thought to have emerged in Africa.

 

[brother Paul]

If one defines human as everything men have classified as "homo" then yes, but I am speaking of "homo sapiens" and this places their presence at a much earlier time than preciously insisted on for many years (assumed by most to be about 195,000 years ago). So I am not saying it is not possible that humanity (Homo Sapiens) did not originate in Africa but if they did then the dating is way off. The problem of course arises that we have no African evidence at this time to support a 700,000 year old Homo Sapien lineage. But am sure someone will come up with a hypothesis based explanation (like early homo-sapien women had sex with ape-like creatures which by the way I have actually heard before)....

 

[Cygnus]

I wish all creationists could admit that Neandertals and Denisovans are members of our own species. DNA evidence is compelling them to reassess their thinking, but some are still holding out.

There are some who think that the Neandertals were nothing more than people of great age as presented in the bible.

 

[brother Paul]

The Land of Nod? Nod means wanderers....