Posted on 03/11/2009 11:40:00 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Perhaps you should read it?
Sure it is an accurate analogy.
Just as there was no requirement that Europeans all die off when Americans branched off and differentiated from them in language and culture; there is no requirement that a parent species all die off when a daughter species branches off and differentiates from them in DNA and morphology.
I didn’t assume anything I said “if.”
And when the grant money is almost gone, be assured it'll suddenly be "discovered".
Evolution doesn't mean that the genetics of every individual in a species change in lockstep. When members of a species become geographically isolated from others, one group can have genetic changes that the other doesn't.
Fairly recently in human history, the groups that moved to Europe developed white skin and (sometimes) blue eyes, while the groups that remained in Africa did not.
The same process, albeit over a longer time, led to the proto-apes that lived in African forests developing into modern apes, while the proto-apes who moved to African savannas developed into bipedal proto-humans.
So one day momma “common apelike ancester” gives birth to “uncommon not-so-apelike descendent” Boy George and cousin momma “common apelike ancester” gives birth to “uncommon not-so-apelike descendent” Girl Anna and Boy George and Girl Anna hook up, migrate over the pond, and the rest is history. Uh huh.
“Lucy” is said to be a human ancestor because human or near human footprints were found near her remains and are assumed to be 3M years old because of that fact,”
Please document this.
That makes us and chimps the closest related apes by DNA.
A chimp is closer in DNA to a human than it is to a gorilla.
And when two populations diverge, there is no requirement that one die out completely.
Nor is there a requirement that just because humans came from non human ape ancestors, that all non human apes become more human in each successive generation. That is something cooked up by Creationist cretins who have no idea what actual biological evolution entails.
The species changed to adapt to climatic and genetic changes. As “better” more adapted species evolved, the less adapted ones died out.
A simplistic answer that hopefully you can understand.
If not, then do some actual reading.
We're lookin’ for some proof, for once, from you guys.
Your post is complete hogwash.
I'd be perfectly happy to let the world judge between me and thee as to who the BS artist was.
Neanderthal DNA is typically described as 'about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee'.
You can do your own google searches on 'neanderthal dna' or 'neanderthal dna chimpanzee'; most of what turns up in standard science outlets and journals will look like this or this.
Fossil DNA proves Neanderthals were not ancestors of humans
Anjali Mody
LONDON, JULY 11: The theory that modern humans descended from Neanderthals has been proved wrong by scientists who have worked on Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA) extracted from a 30,000 year old, fossilised bones of a Neanderthal man. The scientists, led by Svante Paabo of the University of Munich, said that their research established that Neanderthal man was too distant genetically to have been an ancestor of modern man.
The findings have been published in the journal Cell. Using techniques that determine how closely living beings are genetically related, they established that the ancestors of Neanderthals branched off from the human family tree some 600,000 years ago. Neanderthals looked like human beings, had large brains, stood erect and used tools. There is evidence that Cro-Magnon people, who became modern humans, lived at the same time as Neanderthals and interacted with them. According to Chris Stringer, an expert in early humans at London's Natural History Museum, some ancient tools and jewellery indicate they may have traded. But, he says, ``It does not look like they interbred with our ancestors.''
Stringer said that the finding was ``equivalent to landing the Pathfinder on Mars and getting it to work. ``I have not encountered anyone in the scientific world who doubts that they have recovered Neanderthal DNA. We know if anything is a Neanderthal, this is a Neanderthal. ..One couldn't have hoped for a better specimen,'' he added.
Stringer said that the finding would tip the balance in the often bitter dispute about how humans evolved. Those who traced the evolution of modern humans to Neanderthals, who died out about 30,000 years ago, held that there was a `missing link' between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Stringer said the evidence firmly supported the `Out of Africa' theory of human origin. Those, like Stringer, who subscribe to this theory say modern humans evolved in Africa and spread across the world about 1,00,000 years ago.
The other, competing theory is that Homo Erectus - an early ancestor of modern humans - moved out of Africa and across the world and that modern humans evolved separately in several different regions. Both these theories were reached by examining fossils. But, as an excited Stringer said, ``Now we have a completely different approach, and about 1,00,000 years ago our real ancestors emerged from Africa.''
Paabo said that the DNA came from the first skeleton of a Neanderthal found in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856. ``The fossil we have worked with is not just any Neanderthal....it is the Neanderthal that has given the name to the species.''
The work was difficult, Paabo admits, particularly as the techniques used were sensitive and tended to pick up outside DNA contamination. He also said the bones had been shellacked, which could have preserved the DNA and protected them from contamination by modern DNA.
He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee.
Thomas Lindahl, a DNA expert for Britain's Imperial Cancer Research Fund, said, ``It's a real tour de force and probably the most important work that has been done so far on ancient DNA.''
Lindahl also expressed his surprise that the DNA, which usually degrades easily, had survived for so long. Paabo explained that the DNA survived most probably because the fossil came from the cold north of Germany. Efforts to get DNA from fossils from the Middle East had so far failed.
>>>If we evolved from apes why are apes still here? If we did and apes are still here where are the human-ape transition creatures?<<<
They are currently running our country into the ground. Their names are B. Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Fagg and Harry Reid.
I don’t do other people’s research or homework for them.
Well, i was suspect of thie “Lucy” claim, and not from a Christian biblical point of view. In a university anthropology museum, I saw a finished model of lucy based on the skeleton in question.
In just plain honesty, I saw a chimp-like thing in both, stature and structure. Im *assuming* the guy is correct about the bones only being able to be bi-pedal, but remembering the tail-dragging T-Rex skeletons we had for 100 years. I dont know how bulletproof his bi-pedal proof truly is.
My big problem is that finding a Bi-pedal ape, doesn’t make it our ancestor. There is no sane proof that this genetic animal lead to homo sapiens. It has to be just as probable that its from a dead end species that went extinct. Even similar DNA (if they are able to do it on a 3 million yr old skeleton) doesnt prove much. Neanderthal is very close to our DNA, and was a separate line that went extinct.
This is just my rumination on it. Not a genesis theory, but i think the proof that lucy is our ancestor is thin, and the motivation for error or boast claims is high. (fame, “proof” of darwin just as some religious types try to do, continued funding to play in africa,,etc)
I want more proof, it moved into accepted fact too quickly for me.
LAMARCK was the first to formulate the scientific theory of the natural origin of all organisms, including man, and at the same time to draw the two ultimate inferences from this theory firstly, the doctrine of the origin of the most ancient organisms through spontaneous generation; and secondly, the descent of man from the mammal most closely resembling man - the ape.
-- ERNST HAECKEL, Evolution Of Man, Vol. I, p 85.ACCORDING to his whole organization man is undoubtedly primarily, a member of but a single tribe, that of Vertebrates; second, he is a member of but a single class, that, of mammals; and, thirdly, a member of but a single order, that of the apes.
--ERNST HAECKEL, Evolution Of Man, Vol. II, p. 440.A CENTURY of anatomical research brings us back to [Linnaeus'] conclusion, that man is a member of the same order ... as the apes and the lemurs.
--THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY Man's Place in Nature, P. 145.THERE can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is, an off-shoot of the Old World simian stem ... the Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.
-- CHARLES DARWIN, Descent of Man, ChapterVI, p. 181.IT is pretty well agreed that the anthropoid apes and man come from a common ancestor, and he in turn from some primitive, broad-nosed ape.
--H. B. Ferris, Anatomical Laboratory, Sterling School of Medicine, Yale University, (in a letter to the author).WE have in this not only a proof of the literal blood-relationship between man and apes, but the degree of relationship with the different main groups of apes can be determined beyond possibility of mistake.
-- GUSTAVE SCHWALBE, Darwinism and Modern Science, (Quoted by Arthur Thomson, in What is Man? p. 10).ALL the evidence now at our disposal supports the conclusion that man has arisen, as Lamarck and Darwin suspected, from an anthropoid ape not higher in the zoological scale than a chimpanzee.
--SIR ARTHUR KEITH, Presidential address, British Association, Leeds, 1927.THAT man is merely a modified monkey has come to be fully recognized not only by anatomists and physiologists, but also by psychologists and lately even by some sociologists ...The average layman of today possesses hardly more interest in or knowledge of his simian cousins than did Gilbert and Sullivan, who stated some time ago: "Man, however well behaved, at best is but a monkey shaved".
-- ADOLPH H. SCHULTZ, The Scientific Monthly, May, 1943.ACCORDING to the viewpoint held by Wilder, Schwalbe, Keith, Elliot Smith, Sonntag, Tilney and many other recent investigators, including, the present writer, the existing anthropoids and man are merely divergent branches of a primitive anthropoid stock, exactly as held by Darwin. To deny at this date or to seek to minimize the importance of man's close relationship with the chimpanzee-gorilla stock, is to shut one's eyes to a vast accumulation of well tested facts.
--WILLIAM R, GREGORY, Did Man Originate in Central Asia?IN spite of not infrequent attempts to disprove man's kinship with the apes, recent research in anatomy, embryology and comparative pathology, as well as the conclusive tests of blood relationship, has definitely established the fact of man's close kinship with the anthropoid apes, and especially with the gorilla.
G. ELLIOT SMITH, Article "Anthropology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 30, p. 143.I STILL believe that man's stock separated from the large anthropoid ape trunk in the Miocene.
--EARNEST A. HOOTON, Apes, Men, and Morons, p 50.WERE a hypothetical "man from Mars"to visit the earth and write a natural history of the animals of this planet, he would undoubtedly lump man with the higher apes and distinguish him from his simian relatives by a lesser degree of stupidity and the habit of walking erect on the hind legs.
--ALFRED S. ROMER, Professor of Zoology, Harvard University.ALL but three of the above quotations dealing with the ape descent of man were printed in a leaflet which I prepared some years ago for the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. This leaflet had wide distribution and was particularly obnoxious to those writers who, through ignorance or design, had misstated Darwinian teaching.
The following correspondence explains itself:
Dear Mr. Teller: October 9, 1939
Thank you for sending me the slip on "The Ape Ancestry of Man". Comparative anatomists have decided that man and the anthropoid apes are offshoots from a common as yet unknown ancestor. Very few of the good anatomists now teach that man is directly descended from the anthropoid ape. The correct view is given by H. B. Ferris and William K.Gregory' printed on the slip which you have so kindly sent me.
Faithfully yours, WALDEMAR KAEMPFFERT, Science Editor, The New York Times.
Dear. Mr. Kaempffert October 11,1939.
Thank you for your letter concerning the leaflet I sent you on "The Ape Ancestry of Man". 'You state that Dr. H.B. Ferris expresses "the correct view".
I agree with you. And this view is that "the anthropoid apes and man come from a common ancestor, and he in turn from some primitive, broad-nosed ape". How, then, can you deny that man is descended from a "broad-nosed ape"?
If man is descended from a "broad-nosed ape" (as Ferris says he is) how can you maintain that the ancestry of man is "unknown"? A "broad-nosed ape" is a very definite ancestor.
"Very few of the good anatomists", you say, "now teach that man is directly descended from the anthropoid ape". Only ape men stand between man and the primitive anthropoids. And who are these "good" anatomists? Not Keith, not Gregory, not Wooton, not Elliot Smith, These authorities all teach that man is descended from a primitive anthropoid ape. And if an ape isn't a monkey, what kind of an animal is it?
I suspect that a good part of the denial one hears today of man's monkey descent is wrapped up in the religious question. Popular writers and journalists know they are tackling a ticklish question when they tell Pat Mahoney and Isaac Ginsberg that they are descended from monkeys. So they are politely informed they are merely "cousins" of the ape, with a common ancestor "unknown".
No amount of verbal twisting can un-Darwin Darwin, The decriers of monkey descent should take time off to study Darwin and learn that man has not only monkeys in his family tree hut worms among his ancestors.
Keith summarizes our monkey origin as follows: "All the evidence now at out disposal supports the conclusion that man has arisen, as Lamarck and Darwin suspected, from an anthropoid ape not higher in the zoological scale than a chimpanzee."
--Very truly yours, WOOLSEY TELLER
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/ancestry.html
Cordially,
Piltdown man was a hoax. I’d say there’s reason to be naturally skeptical given past history.
I was hoping someone would say that. ;-)
You left out the part about the millions of transitional - between species - fossils.
Why don’t you give us some simplistic evidence of them?
Pictures (photos, not your “artists” renderings) would be nice for we simple minded folk.
The burden of proof is on the speaker of the “facts”. If you can’t back up what you profess are facts, then they are BS and worthless in a discussion.
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.