Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted on 03/21/2002 7:04:27 AM PST by RoughDobermann
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record. There are suggestions from a few sources that paternal mtDNA can sometimes be inherited, which could affect analyses based on mtDNA.
I'm sure you're capable to construct a simple sentence, correct?
And I'm really flattered that I inspire your lack of coherence but you know...I'd like to inspire some truly interesting arguments from you. Of course, I might miss your odd posts should you ever stop. Oh well. Can't have it all, can you?
I guess I do :)
BTW I used to play French horn in H.S. too.
Great instrument, eh? I thoroughly enjoy playing. In fact, we have contest tomorrow.
Obviously there's a correlation here between a certain brass instrument and acceptance of evolution. Guess which instrument I played in high school... ;)
Yes. Although it's long been thought that Neanderthals were not direct ancestors of modern humans anyway, but evidence other than anatomical evidence has been hard to come by until now. It's not definitive, given that the DNA analysis is not perfect, but it's another piece of evidence that Neanderthals and modern humans share a common ancestor rather than one being descended from the other.
IOW, this is hardly an unexpected result.
Nahh, I thought he said he played trumpet for K.C. and the Sunshine Band, or something ;)
No, existence is just "evidence"(I think we have been far afield on the semantics here) of such, as a Timex™ watch is evidence of a Timex™ company (although a certain chap named Dawkins -and others- has trouble with this concept). Yet the questions posed are evidently stumpers to Darwinians.
That should be obvious. Erectus is older than the neanderthal and visually much further from us than the neanderthal. At this point, in order to demonstrate that modern man evolved, you'd have to produce some new hominid (as a plausible ancestor) which was closer to us both in morphology and time than the neanderthal and, had such a creature ever existed, his works and remains would be very easy to find. Erectus does not qualify here since that is clearly going the wrong way.
I suspect they were stumpers to everyone. Was there a real point? As in, "Where is the fossil record leading to chimps and bonobos?"
Probably with the fossil record leading to bats (but in the latter case I'm purely guessing). If it happened in an eroding, forested upland, you won't find much fossil trace.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
So forest creature evolution is undocumentable? Or does this unfortunate accident of nature only happen to chimps?
The sequence is mis-ordered. You insult the chimp.
I was going to be a Biologist at one point so I still like to follow such things.
More recently, it was generally reconized and accepted that the Human Genome project would prove to be 100,000 genes.
Oops, guess the science was not static again.
Only 30,000 were found!
That falls in the realm of magnitudes of error, BTW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.