[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution To Get Us Here?

[Crying Rock]

Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," 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€Â

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08222.html

 

[Crying Rock]

The most effective and devastating refutation of this sort of thing is to bring in a selection of fossil human, hominid, and ape bones and skulls and ask creationists to sort them. Turns out, they can't do it, because the numerous transitions are so close.

I knew it! The Smithsonian is stacked with creationists!

Very, very sly:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

I’m outraged!! ;)

BTW, according to The Smithsonian, nix everything prior to H. ergaster in this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hu ... on_fossils

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," 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€Â

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

It is possible, of course, for different species to interbreed, and that may have happened from time to time. But Neandertal DNA is well outside the normal variation among anatomically modern humans today.

 

[Barbarian]

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

Hmm... (Barbarian checks) Don't see that in your link. It would be kind of surprising, since there is a great deal of evidence for human relationships earlier. Would you be able to show me where the museum staff says it's "pure conjecture?"

And yes, it's extremely hard for any scientist to draw the line precisely between humans and other apes. No surprise there. Creationism requires that there be a precise dividing line, but as you know, even creationists can't agree where it is.

H. ergaster, BTW, is either an extremely primitive H. erectus, or an extremely evolved Australopithecine. It's so closely intermediate, there is considerable debate about that.

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:
Neandertals are significantly different than humans in a number of important details. Their DNA, BTW, is different enough that most scientists now put them in a separate species or subspecies.

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," 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€Â

In comparison to modern DNA 27 differences are seen. The Neanderthal sequence was compared with 2051 human and 59 chimpanzee sequences over 360 base pairs. Twenty five of the 27 variable base pairs coincide with positions that vary in at least one of the human sequences. The sequence was compared with 994 human mtDNA lineages. While these lineages differ among themselves by eight substitutions on average, the range of difference with the Neanderthal sequence is 22-36. The Neanderthal sequence has 28.2 ±1.9 substitutions from the European lineage, 27.1 ±12.2 substitutions from the African lineage, 27.7 ±2.2 substitutions from the Asian lineage, 27.4 ±1.8 substitutions from the American lineage, and 28.3 ±2.7 substitutions from the Australian/Oceanic lineages. This indicates no closer a relationship with Europeans than with the other modern human subsets considered.

The comparison to chimpanzees with modern humans is 55.0 ±3.0, compared to the average between humans and Neanderthals of 25.6 ±2.2. These results indicate a divergence of the human and Neanderthal lineages long before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of humans. Based on the estimated divergence date of 4-5 million years ago for humans and chimpanzees, the authors estimate the human and Neanderthal divergence at 550,000-690,000 years ago. The age of the common human ancestor, using the same procedure, is about 120,000-150,000 years ago.

These results do not rule out the possibility that Neanderthals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the results support the hypothesis that modern humans arose in Africa before migrating to Europe and replacing the Neanderthal population with little or no interbreeding.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

It is possible, of course, for different species to interbreed, and that may have happened from time to time. But Neandertal DNA is well outside the normal variation among anatomically modern humans today.

Your citation deals with mtDNA versus nDNA. Even within Native American populations there are at least 5 distinct mtDNA hgs: A, B, C, D and X.

Professor Paabo's statement refers to nDNA:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Aian or African…â€Â

 

[Crying Rock]

According to The Smithsonian, everthing prior to H. ergaster is pure conjecture.

Hmm... (Barbarian checks) Don't see that in your link. It would be kind of surprising, since there is a great deal of evidence for human relationships earlier. Would you be able to show me where the museum staff says it's "pure conjecture?"

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/rud.html

 

[Barbarian]

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

I don't see it anywhere on the site. Do you have a checkable source for that claim?

 

[Crying Rock]

Look at the question marks. Anything prior to those question marks is conjecture according the Smithsonian's official position:

I don't see it anywhere on the site. Do you have a checkable source for that claim?

Just the Smithsonian's anthropology website:

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

It is not yet certain if H. rudolfensis was ancestral to the later species in Homo

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/rud.html

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

 

[Barbarian]

So they don't actually say this was "pure conjecture" after all? Thank you.

 

[Crying Rock]

So they don't actually say this was "pure conjecture" after all? Thank you.

Crying Rock wrote:

What do question marks mean to you?

Conjecture-

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

Question-

2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.

4. a subject of dispute or controversy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question

 

[Adullam]

God allowed us devolve into our present state IMHO

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that the Smithsonian doesn't say that parts of the graph are "pure conjecture."

What do question marks mean to you?

In a phylogeny, it means that while the evidence indicates that lineage, it is not conclusive. You really didn't know that?

It's a good idea not to attribute ideas to people, until you know for sure what they mean.

 

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian notes that the Smithsonian doesn't say that parts of the graph

are "pure conjecture."

What do question marks mean to you?

In a phylogeny, it means that while the evidence indicates that lineage, it is not conclusive.

And what's the difference between what you've stated and conjecture:

Conjecture-

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

 

[Barbarian]

Let's just note that the Smithsonian did not say that it was "pure conjecture" and go on.

 

[Crying Rock]

Let's just note that the Smithsonian did not say that it was "pure conjecture" and go on.

Fine, let's just say it's unresolved.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's just say when asked to show us where they said it, you admitted they didn't, but asserted that they meant it anyway.

 

[Crying Rock]

Let's just say when asked to show us where they said it, you admitted they didn't, but asserted that they meant it anyway.

Do "questionable" and "conjecture" mean the same thing? Anyway, at this point, we're just arguing semantics. If you like "questionable" better, fine.

Crying Rock wrote:

What do question marks mean to you?

Conjecture-

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

Question-

2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.

4. a subject of dispute or controversy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think anyone who made even a cursory examination of the evidence would call it "pure conjecture."

Certainly, the Smithsonian did not even hint at that.

 

[Crying Rock]

I don't think anyone who made even a cursory examination of the evidence would call it "pure conjecture."

Certainly, the Smithsonian did not even hint at that.

Crying Rock wrote:

Do "questionable" and "conjecture" mean the same thing? Anyway, at this point, we're just arguing semantics. If you like "questionable" better, fine.

 

[Barbarian]

You attributed an opinion to the people at the Smithsonian. But it's a false attribrution. They never said it, and they do not believe it.