Skip to comments.Svante Paabo: DNA clues to our inner Neanderthal
Posted on 09/03/2011 6:15:38 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Sharing the results of a massive, worldwide study, geneticist Svante Pääbo shows the DNA proof that early humans mated with Neanderthals after we moved out of Africa. (Yes, many of us have Neanderthal DNA.) He also shows how a tiny bone from a baby finger was enough to identify a whole new humanoid species. Svante Pääbo explores human genetic evolution by analyzing DNA extracted from ancient sources, including mummies, an Ice Age hunter and the bone fragments of Neanderthals.
(Excerpt) Read more at exchangemagazine.com ...
Which, in a nutshell, defines the inherent and complete idiocy of claiming that "hominid palaentology" is "science."
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
There's a link (not an embed) to the mp4 video, I listened to it as well as I could at work yesterday, running it three times in succession because, well, it's work, which is where I work when I work.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.The Neandertal EnigmaFrayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
So what's idiotic here?
Stating the obvious! The Democrat Party and the entire staff of the New York Times, for example, are obviously Neanderthals. We didn't need DNA to prove it.
In fact, judging from the U.S. electorate, homosapiens DNA is probably less prevalent than Neandethal in the population.
The inventor of the technique was a young Earth creationist and Biblical catastrophist, so you may be onto something there.
Neandertal ancestry is the only thing western civilization has going for it.
If “modern man” coexisted with the neanderthal, then it wasn’t evolution was it?
Fascinating stuff. I’ve often thought I would like to turn my talents towards examining fossils and learning what ancient life was like. But since I’ve never actually encountered a paleontological/molecular biological research group dedicated to such study, and medical research has tons of opportunities and is quite lucrative, I simply have not seriously looked into making such a career change.
There is nothing about evolution which precludes newer species from existing side by side with older species.
when you are scrambling around for minuscule amounts of DNA and the like....your science is limited considerably...
that does not make it not science...on the contrary it makes it exceptional science to be able to eek out what they got from the lack of evidence...This does not make their findings rote gospel...this makes it a great beginning towards the ultimate answers....
I’m confused. He said that Neandethals were never in Africa. And yet “modern man” came out of Africa and mixed with them.
How is that possible? He’s suggesting that two species of humanoids developed completely independantly and yet could interbreed.
I don’t dispute that we probably mixed with whatever was close to us, I do dispute that Neanderthals were never in Africa. Did they not almost have to have ancestors in common or they wouldn’t have been able to breed?
Instruct me, SunkenCiv, where am I going wrong?
They (and we) had common ancestors. One of the foolish errors made over and over, perhaps beginning with R. Virchow, is to claim that different looks means different origins.
An interesting question would be “Who has the MOST Neanderthal genetic makeup?”. Since the percentage varies.
That's the only thing I can see to recommend it. His error, however, is in adopting the flawed mindset of the evolutionist.
Thanks, but that’s a pretty stupid thing to say, and it was the first couple of thousand times someone said it on FR.
Arguments that should never be used
7. If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
Neandertal ancestry is the best thing western civilization has going for it.
Defending evolution is pretty stupid, given the lack of fossil evidence.
(’: I stand corrected. :’)
IOW, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, but you do keep talking.
Back in the good old days when they were piddling around trying to fit bones together it was hard to get a good fit so you could figure out hair color. Now we know the Neanderthals had red hair, and if you think that's a problem ..... well, it's not a problem. There are 200 million people in this world with red hair and even more with mixed colored hair and they don't think it's funny at all. So, if you want to laugh and joke about it watch your back. They are lurking around night and day ready to fly into a rage, flash those blue/green eyes and use whatever is handy as a cudgel.
It was good for the Neanderthals to be redheads. Life was tough back in the day.
(NOTE DNA researchers say it was a different gene than the modern gene for red hair, but the principle is the same ~ and there's a reason the saber toothed tigers are gone).
So you have fossil evidence for transition from one species to another, across the animal kingdom.
That should be rich, there’s lots of folk who’d like to see that.
Why’d they go to all the trouble to invent crazy theories to explain the lack of a fossil record.
Is the fact that the red hair gene is different a new finding?
The first time I ever saw the proposition that Neanderthals and homo sapiens had interbred, part of the evidence presented was that both Neanderthals and modern humans have members with red hair. I'll admit that I was not convinced by the argument; it's completely possible for color pigments in different species to arise independently. (With the new genetic evidence, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing; if Neanderthals and homo sapiens were interbreeding, then they weren't different species.)
Don’t you know that all fossils are transitional?
Begging the question is so easy that even a Neanderthal can do it...
Don’t you know that all fossils are transitional?
Begging the question is so easy that even a Neanderthal can do it...
Unfortunately, with DNA evidence on people long dead, you have much the same problem as the old bone-splicers of old - which is that modern investigators are piecing together disparate pieces of evidence to make them fit the picture that has already been pre-determined. In other words, the evidence tends to be made to fit the theory, instead of the other way around.
Whyd they go to all the trouble to invent crazy theories to explain the lack of a fossil record.
Of course, it was the plethora of such evidence that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution. Without the abundant evidence, I doubt anyone would have come up with such a theory... or else, it would have been relegated to crackpotdom, much like those shows I see on the history channel featuring "experts" explaining their "theories" that life on Earth was seeded by extraterrestrials.
DNA is the new standard because the fossil ‘record’ didn’t work out. It will take a few years for ‘science’ to figure out that DNA doesn’t support evolution either, but never fear, there will be a new standard by then with lots of wiggle-room that just happens to support evolution.
But, that's a different issue. There's NO REASON to think of the Neanderthal as a different species ~ more like a different "race" I am sure.
One hypothesis about how they survived the Northern climate during SEVERAL ice ages is that they had twins in every pregnancy. That kicked their reproductive rate up to match the need.
That probably gave them four active mammaries.
Again, we digress. I'm still POd at the dentist for busting through that bony plate the first time I had Novocaine. It hurt.
The evidence fits the theory because the theory is just that good.
It also has great predictive power; without the theory of evolution to use as a guide, I'm not sure how we would use evidence collected about, e.g., a metabolic pathway in one species to make predictions about a similar metabolic pathway in a different species.
Of course. That's why Chapter 6 of Origins was titled "Absence or Rarity of Transitional Varieties" and Chapter 10 of Origins was titled "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record".
Now there's an argument against 'natural selection'...
We are usually not identical copies of each other. DNA is probably a far more complex chemical than we realize. There are probably super computers in there coded in a way we do not yet understand ~ and presumably they work in very small dimensions using quantum processes. What those processes might tap into is unknowable at present.
It is tempting to think DNA is linked to a great universal overmind ~ which enables it to not only be all things to all men, but also to be all men, all critters, all living things anywhere, under virtually all conditions.
Let's see. Metabolic pathways between dog and wolf, similar. Metabolic pathways between dog and fungus, dissimilar.
Yep, where would we be without 'evolution' to help us solve the deep questions of life...
Well, the thing is, people tend to treat DNA as if it were some sort of magic wand that answers all questions. It's not. DNA is merely a piece of evidence, just like fossilised bones are pieces of evidence.
The trick comes in how people choose to interpret the evidence. Evolutionists often choose to do so circularly.
the Africans do not have the neanderthal genes...the Africans that left Africa 35000 years ago and became the European Cro Magnon until they mated with neanderthal(according to what some believe including myself) and became the European Homosapiens...
Wow, that is profound.
"We are usually not identical copies of each other."
Wow, the pearls of wisdom just keep flowing.
"DNA is probably a far more complex chemical than we realize."
Oh my, you're getting close to my post #33.
"There are probably super computers in there coded in a way we do not yet understand ~ and presumably they work in very small dimensions using quantum processes. What those processes might tap into is unknowable at present."
And we all know that supercomputers design and program themselves.
"It is tempting to think DNA is linked to a great universal overmind ~ which enables it to not only be all things to all men, but also to be all men, all critters, all living things anywhere, under virtually all conditions."
People used to fixate on fossils, now it's DNA. In a few years it will be something else. All purported to 'support' evolution until the don't by which time 'science' is off to the next great thing which won't support evolution when it is fully understood either.
Yet 'science' never learns that the evidence doesn't support evolution because evolution is a philosophy supported by fallacy.
I’m just reading a book by Gilbert Ling which suggests that DNA is just a toolkit used by the cell which is actually the cytoplasm.
I’m actually the list-owner for the TrueOrigin yahoo group.
Which scientist do you believe? NOVA ran a series this week on the evolution of man. They said in this show that the entire Neanderthal genome has now been sequenced and that from this evidence there was no interbreeding between modern man and Neanderthals for 200,000 years.
Where are the fossils filling the transition gap between species A and Species B, in the cases where theorists allege such a transition occurred?
Why do you find it necessary to bring it up?
Because that’s what I was talking about and you responded to me.
Is that hard to understand?
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.