Posted on 08/16/2012 9:41:05 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Paging Nicholas Wade. He’s the New York Times science writer who worships at the altar of Darwinism.
Two years ago, he reported that biologists, led by Svante Paabo of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, had determined that Neanderthals mated with modern humans.
That “scientific” finding provided a convenient explanation for what happened to humanity’s supposed ancestor: We interbred with them until they disappeared.
Now comes a new study, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the finding reported by Wade, were wrong. There was no mating, no “hybridization,” between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (us).
The study’s authors, Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, scientists with the Evolutionary Ecology Group at Britain’s Cambridge University, say that modern humans have no Neanderthal DNA.
Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?).
This is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution. Yet Wade has yet to weigh in on what it all means.
Are we never to know what happened to Neanderthals? Shall we never discover the “missing link,” proving that man evolved from monkey?
Could the proponents of “intelligent design” actually be right, that man did not begin existence as a simple, one-cell organism in this planet’s primordial ooze, but as the fully-formed creation of Almighty God?
Of course, Wade is not going to concede anything to those of us who dare to question his god, Darwin.
He sneers, “To many biologists and others (meaning enlightened journalists like Wade himself), it is a source of amazement and embarrassment that many Americans repudiate Darwin’s theory and that some even espouse counter-theories like creationism or intelligent design.”
“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”
Wade’s attack on evolution doubters, like yours truly, is nothing new for the New York Times.
All the way back in 1906, the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is affectionately known in some quarters, published an editorial supporting a decision by the Bronx Zoo to put an African pygmy named Ota Benga on display in its Monkey House – a putative live exhibit of human evolution..
“We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter,” the Times harrumphed. “It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”
The Times was wrong on human evolution then. And its pro-Darwin reporting is no less wrong today.
Why? Because mutations appear to us as being random? Many things in nature appear to us as random - that doesn’t mean that they are not part of God’s plan.
The power of God doesn’t stop at the casino door, so why would it stop at DNA mutation?
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
Humans do it different.
Actually that whole field has gotten rather exciting in recent months after that finding was reported and now you get such incredible articles as the one at "http://genomewiki.ucsc.edu/index.php/PRDM9:_meiosis_and_recombination" which is one of the clearer versions I've seen ~ most these guys can't write of course, but eventually professional science writers will eventually straighten all this out.
Personally I have been amazed mostly with the fact these guys can look at linking processes involving specific sites on DNA.
Reversals are fun ~ love reading about them since they are currently under intense study by folks who think schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are mediated by the same area of the same chromosome. I gather reversals have survival value, but why? What is the advantage of schizophrenia to the species?
Legit science isn’t based on faith. But we’re talking about the theory of evolution, not legit science.
Science = systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation or experimentation.
Microevolution (relatively small variations that can cause the formation of a new subspecies) is observable so it’s science. Macroevolution (formations of entirely new species) is not observable so it’s not science. If it was, we’d be drowning in evidence. The missing evidence is replaced with extrapolation, air and sometimes outright fraud.
Just a few years back I began referring to Democrats as "fascist pigs". Currently the popular press has caught up with me and it's a common thing to see Democrats described as fascistic people.
But, of course, they are still fascist pigs.
While of interest that can only determine where on the chromosome parental DNA is shuffled together - it doesn’t create or determine anything new. Grandma’s genes are usually just as good as Grandpa’s; and the resulting child will end up with a 50-50 split regardless.
Just because you are apparently unable to understand or haven’t looked at or for the evidence doesn’t make it nonexistent or missing or fraudulent.
Look at the university library at the volumes of the publication “Evolution” alone - or of the many journals dealing almost exclusively with evolution - if pages were water one would most certainly drown (if unable to swim).
The nature of science is extrapolation. The weights dropped by Galileo off the tower of Pisa were not said to be relevant only to those weights at that location - but extrapolated into a system whereby one could accurately predict the rate at which ANY object would fall at ANY location.
Just because we didn’t see our own Sun form through gravity and nuclear fusion doesn’t mean that the theory of stellar formation is in any way lacking and not applicable to our own Sun.
“We interbred with them (Neanderthals) until they disappeared.”
Apparently they resurfaced in Blair House.
I don't see it that way. Perhaps you think that you know what God's plan is and how it will work out in all respects, but I don't pretend to. Oh, the big picture, sure. The battle has already been won. But the technical details, from quantum physics to the size of the universe...IMHO those are things that we mere mortals should be amazed by and eager to learn of his wonders. Could evolution be part of that? I think so, but not the way Darwinists are determined to "prove". Kind of like the idea that the Earth need not be the center of the universe in order to prove there is a God and he sent his only Son to die for our sins.
Sometimes you get a sequence shuffled backwards ~ but the points where the chromosome stands connect ~ the Hot Spots ~ make it impossible to breed a Chimp/Human combo.
How would that work? The chimp swaps it’s mother and father’s DNA at its ‘hot spots’ and the human swaps it’s mother and father’s DNA at its ‘hot spots’.
The fact that the hot spots were different would have zero effect on the viability of the combined gametes in the hybrid.
It would only cause problems once a viable hybrid attempted to produce gametes - and it’s mother and father’s DNA didn’t match up.
This is the reason why mules are (mostly) sterile - because its mother (horse) and father (donkey) DNA will not usually match up well enough to produce viable gametes. This makes a mule (mostly) infertile - but it doesn’t stop the mule itself from being viable.
So I ask, how would THAT work?
The "species barrier" begins at that point rather than with some other process like different shaped sex organs (common in insects and readily created by infection with a bacteria ~ the name of which escapes me at the moment - I think it's a genus name ~ Wolbachia, but there are others that also affect insect sex organs)
Look at today's situation ~ humans come in only two colors ~ RED/YELLOW PIGMENT and BLACK/BROWN PIGMENT.
Currently the redheads are barely 4% of the world's population but their superior coloration will someday SWAMP the others.
These are not different species!
The failure of meiosis to occur means sterility not non-viability.
Meiosis is not necessary to create a viable embryo - only to create a viable gamete - and both chimps and humans are able to create viable gametes.
The inability to reproduce may be due to any number of genetic factors - but meiosis hot spots ARE NOT ONE OF THEM.
If you have an actual source that says different - please provide it.
However your inability to explain how it would work (and your inability to provide a source that would explain it) makes it likely that you were just confused about the subject.
Failure of meiosis causes sterility, not non-viability.
However, I think you would admit that having "a lot of evidence" does not necessarily mean having ALL the evidence - the whole story (hence my tagline).
I admit that I muddied the waters of discussion by moving from evolution to origins. However, the point remains.
Certainly we can make extrapolations - even broad assumptions - from the evidence at hand. However, if we accept the idea of a creator, by default then, it behoves us to explore the idea that things may not be as they seem.
In this world, we see a finished product (creation). How we arrived at this product is of course the debate. How would our DNA appear if we were plunked down in the Garden vis-a-vis Eden instead of having been the product of natural selection?
What parameters can we put on the creator? What process does a creator use in the formation of a body, a planet - or the universe. The question really is: what does creation look like?! Must the creator conform to our requirements - or must we discover his?
Last Thursdayism is of no use to science. Sure everything could have been created last Thursday - with false memories and a false history. But such a supposition is of absolutely no use - because going on the assumption that (for example) World War II actually happened - will yield results in terms of knowing and predicting reality.
As to what our DNA looks like - it looks exactly like one would suppose a ‘whatever worked at the time’ collection of some useful and some discarded genetic programs with ‘families’ of similar genes looking exactly like they were duplicates ‘retrofitted’ and adapted to a new use rather than a new ‘perfect’ design de novo.
The Bible says I am created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I was also created via cellular processes involving DNA. That apparently was how God created me “from dust”. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam from dust?
Obviously that could be interpreted as sterility ~ NO VIABLE EMBRYO ~ which is, of course, just that.
You can also have Viable Embryos that themselves are unable to produce useful gametes.
I think you slipped a cog here.
Or, you and I may be reading the same scientific language version of the same material differently. To dispel doubts here's a POP SCIENCE version: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339172/title/Geneticists_go_ape_for_better_primate_family_tree
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2858858/posts
and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895057/posts are both recent threads related to this one. We do it different and they are not real recent relatives anyway! I assumed you had read them.
Meiosis is necessary to create viable gametes. Both horses and men produce viable gametes because meiosis isn't a problem when their parents are the same species - but those viable gametes cannot, when combined, produce a viable embryo.
A horse and a donkey produce viable gametes - AND they produce a viable embryo - but when that embryo grows into a mule and attempts to undergo meiosis to produce viable gametes - it runs into difficulty.
Follow?
Meiosis isn't a problem in the mule, and doesn't stop it from becoming an ADULT - it stops it from being fertile (usually).
Even if meiosis between a donkey chromosome and a horse chromosome was COMPLETELY unable to happen - horse and donkey cross breeds would still be sterile mules.
Your source doesn't claim what you claim.
So, to plant a garden you already need seeds, or maybe cuttings, or could be a nursery somewhere depending on what you are planting.
No doubt God has something like a Tardis (in Dr. Who) which is bigger on the inside than out, with a myriad of rooms with all sorts of things ~ like greenhouses, maybe some studios to cut and paste genomes ~ all that stuff.
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.