Posted on 09/03/2011 6:15:38 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
well I would not be the first here at FR.....so you are welcome...
African man and Neanderthal man had a common ancestor. It looks like African man and Neanderthal man were different races rather than different species, ie, were genetically close enough to their common ancestor that they could interbreed.
The Africans who moved from Arabia to Africa are mostly still there unless their in-bred Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon cousins took them somewhere else eh!
By the simplest definition, two populations are considered as belonging to the same species if they can breed and produce fertile offspring. By that definition, donkeys and horses are not the same species.
I'm not sure about the cats and wild cats. I had a cat that I suspected was a product of a domestic/wild breeding--whenever she would become emotional, her fur would raise up along her spine in a way that I have never seen in another cat. Her kittens (she managed one litter before we had her spayed) all looked like ordinary cats, though.
Neanderthal men raided Cro-magnon caves to steal their women coz the paper bag hadn`t been invented yet.
But I wasn’t responding to your thoughts on evolutionary theory.
It's so recent that their kits all behave in the same way ~ and humans find tiger cubs as endearing as the cubs of any other cat ~
I'm not completely sure that that qualifies as a common metabolic pathway... ;-)
I’m sure that Paabo is a fair and objective scientist without any financial interest in furthering his theories. What? He works at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Studies? You mean this could be to his financial benefit? Follow the money.
That's begging the question. A simple fallacy.
"Considering the primitive tools that Darwin had to work with (by today's standards), he really did an amazing job. For him to understand that there are physical limitations to the fossilization process, or that current geological processes destroy evidence of past processes is really impressive."
You said, "Of course, it was the plethora of such [fossil] 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..." Your claim that the fossil record is what led to the theory of evolution was shown to be incorrect by 2 chapters in Darwin's own book. Darwin was predicting that the 'fossil record' would vindicate him when it was more complete. Now the fossil record is much more complete and he wasn't vindicated.
Of course, now he has scientists making excuses for the failure of his prediction, making the same claim and declaring it 'impressive'. "Well, the fossil record will always be incomplete." Just wow. Nothing but logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy. Evolution is a philosophy supported by fallacy. It is not science.
"I know you're trying to be dismissive of the actual use of the theory as a real scientist (me) applies it. However, understanding the different evolutionary paths that canids and fungi have taken is crucial for making "educated guesses" about what I should look for when characterizing the metabolic pathway in one species, if I already have knowledge about it in the other species."
You mischaracterize evolution. There is no 'knowledge' about where to look. 'Science' simply assumes an evolutionary 'pathway'. If 'science' is wrong when your 'educated guess' doesn't pan out, then you just change the assumed path. Evolution doesn't point you in any particular direction. All you are doing is applying pre-existing knowledge after-the-fact.
"There is nothing in creationist "theory" that would inform me as to whether canids and fungi have any metabolic pathways in common, much less what similarities and differences I should expect to see between those pathways.
There is nothing in evolutinary 'theory' that would inform you as to whether canids and fungi would have any metabolic pathways in common either, much less what similaritities and differences you would expect to see between those pathways.
I’m thinking of epigenetics. What what drives the eigenetics system?
Are you claiming that I should be able to read your mind in addition to your post?
Same goes for those self-serving crony capitalists who invented the transistor. But thanks for the incoherent regurgitation.
I'm sorry, but repeating talking points from some creationist website is not the same as dissecting, from a scientific standpoint, the theory. How can a scientist possibly apply "pre-existing knowledge after the fact," when the whole point of science is to reveal new knowledge?
There is nothing in evolutinary 'theory' that would inform you as to whether canids and fungi would have any metabolic pathways in common either, much less what similaritities and differences you would expect to see between those pathways.
Really? You are so sure of that? I'm so glad I have you to tell me that the methodology I've been using throughout my whole entire scientific career doesn't actually work.
How about, instead of repeating creationist talking points, you try to learn (objectively!) something about the theory which you are trying to discredit. The only way to legitimately discredit it is through understanding it.
What in this life has neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences?
Answer: ***Almost nothing! ****
This is why our Founding Fathers constructed a **limited** government, because nearly everything the government touches has NON-neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences that impact the real lives of citizens.
While the process of the scientific method are dispassionately defined the findings uncovered are almost never politically, culturally, or religiously neutral and do have non-neutral consequences for real people.
If there were NO government K-12 schools, and **all** colleges and universities were privately funded, and if **all** research ( except for military defense) were private, the extreme animosity among the evolutionists, creationists, and IDers would drip up like dew on hot summer's day.
Much of the tension among these three groups is because they seriously do not want their tax dollars going toward teaching the next generation of voters a worldview, or to promote a worldview, that they find politically, culturally, and religiously abhorrent!
The above applies equally to all of the groups participating in this tug of war for government control over the worldview of its citizens.
(By the way...In my homeschool, with my children, evolution was taught, and we are a deeply Christian family.)
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.Which episode of NOVA do you believe? The "Neanderthals on Trial" episode transcript shows Svante Pääbo saying nothing of the kind. In fact, no one appears to say anything of the kind. I did a search for the string "200", and found nothing even close to what you said.
Maybe the moderators would consider a Science Caucus. No scientific topic can be discussed in Free Republic without it devolving into this kind of squabble. There is no basis in trust, of philosophy, or even a common fact base for productive conversation to go on so I think it would just be best for everyone concerned to separate the two sides with a caucus barrier.
The three hour series was called “Becoming Human”. It ran all three hours in a row last week on the Twin Cities public TV station. I in no way vouch for the accuracy of anything in the series. They claimed in the third hour that the Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. I was very surprised by that. I wouldn’t be surprised of it was false.
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.