Are you claiming that evoloserism is about lifestyles and not about science??
Posted on 08/06/2010 4:19:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
When they DNA sequenced Neanderthal they found specific DNA sequences that are only found in people if they are of European or Middle-Eastern ancestry and consistent with there being interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals such that, of those populations 1-4% of their ancestry was from Neanderthal.
We and Neanderthal are related by common ancestry as well. Dogs are wolves that have been selectively bred by human beings. Wolves and coyotes are a better analogy as both wolves and coyotes share a recent common ancestor, and there is interbreeding such that many coyote populations might have some 1-4% wolf ancestry.
If your contention is that all species were designed de novo, they were designed with features in their DNA to make them look EXACTLY as if they share common ancestry, and that these ancestors were infected with retrovirus in their germ-line cells such that all descendants share that retrovirus sequence at the exact same location.
Wow, between that and tricks with starlight and radioisotopic decay, God must really have wanted to convince us (in error supposedly) that the universe is billions of years old!
Bullshit. All we're talking about here is simple logic and apparently that's asking too much in several cases. "Too remote to be descended from" is a transitive relationship.
Dogs and wolves are of known common ancestry. They are much more different from each other in morphology than humans and neanderthals.
The genetic difference between humans and neanderthals is one that, in a faster reproducing species, can accumulate within a reasonable span. (i.e. I can make fruit flies from a common ancestor differ by that % in DNA). So if I can do it in a few years with fruit flies, by what criteria are you telling me it couldn't happen with neanderthals and humans over one million years?
All the evidence suggests we are related by common ancestry. No other theory explains all the evidence.
How do you explain the fact that if I find an ERV in both humans and orangutans I will also find it in chimps and gorillas?
Why is it that ERV’s only present in some human populations look much more similar (fidelity) to the live virus than one that is present in every human population? Why does it looks exactly as if an ancestor common to only those human populations that have it got a virus in its germ-line DNA - and it didn't have time to mutate much in comparison to the one that is shared by ALL human populations?
Why is an ERV shared among chimps and humans so much ‘higher fidelity’ than one that is shared among all apes? Why is the one that is shared among all apes so much ‘higher fidelity’ than one that is shared among all primates?
For starters, you don't even have anything remotely like one million years for this one. Gunnar Heinsohn in fact has demonstrated that stratigraphical evidence does not support any more than one or two generations for the changeover from Neanderthals to modern humans on the planet and nobody else is claiming real evidence for modern man being on the planet more than about 30K years, tops.
Second, the evidence of any Neanderthal contribution to the genetic makeup of modern man is vanishingly thin to such an extent that scholars are in agreement that we are not descended from the Neanderthal.
Sources for that:
Other articles are not difficult to find. The typical statement:
" We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species."
In order to be descended from something via any process resembling evolution, that is, even if you were to assume that evolution was anything other than a crock of bullshit (hint, it IS a crock of bullshit), at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something.
That, according to all experts and every intelligent commentary you will find, rules the Neanderthal out as a human ancestor; the genetic gulf is simply too wide, and the Neanderthal too remote>
DNA Tests: Humans Not Descended from Neanderthals
And so the claim (same source and/or numerous other sources):
Based on the number of differences, and the expected rate of change, Neanderthals and humans last shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago, the researchers say.
That is called grasping at straws and apparently none of the evolutionists see the simply logical error in such claims. ALL OTHER HOMINIDS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY FURTHER REMOVED FROM US THAN THE NEANDERTHAL. The Neanderthal was the one which came closest to looking like one of us. If the Neanderthal was too remote for us to be descended from (he was), then so were all the others. Home Erectus, the next closest hominid, was substantially more apelike in appearance than the Neanderthal.
Modern humans have been around for around 100,000 years, when they co-existed with Neanderthals who existed around 400,000 years ago and died out around 30,000 years ago.
Scholars are not in agreement, because science isn't decided by scholarship, but by data. I suggest you catch up.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/neandertal/press/presskit-neandertal/pdf/Science_Green.pdf
Neanderthals are not thought to be the most direct ancestor of all humans, not because they are too different; but because there were modern humans that lived alongside them and that came out of Africa from non-Neanderthal sources.
And no, evolution is not dependent upon interbreeding. Evolution is the inevitable consequence of genetic variation and selection of those variations. It takes one breeding population, not the interbreeding of two different species.
As usual creationists can't seem to be bothered to learn any actual science.
I notice you had no answer for my questions about ERV DNA sequences. No answer for your clumsy mischaracterization about “trace elements”.
You don't have any basis for that. I mean, there's no dating scheme which would date bones past a few thousand years and we're now being treated to the sorry spectacle of evolosers claiming that raw meat and blood cells now turning up in dinosaur remains are tens of millions of years old.
Read what a real expert has to say about stratigraphical dating and Neanderthals:
Gunnar Heinsohn (Univ. of Bremen) notes (Wie Alt ist das Menschengeschlect?) that:
Mueller-Karpe, the first name in continental paleoanthropology, wrote thirty years ago on the two strata of homo erectus at Swanscombe/England: "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable. (From a geological point of view it is uncertain if between the two strata there passed decades, centuries or millennia.)" (Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Vol I, Munich 1966, p. 293).The outstanding scholar never returned to this hint that in reality there may have passed ten years where the textbooks enlist one thousand years. Yet, I tried to follow this thread. I went to the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age which usually look as follows
modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent man).
In my book "Wie alt ist das Menschengeschlecht?" [How Ancient is Man?], 1996, 2nd edition, I focused for Neanderthal man on his best preserved stratigraphy: Combe Grenal in France. Within 4 m of debris it exhibited 55 strata dated conventionally between -90,000 and -30,000. Roughly one millennium was thus assigned to some 7 cm of debris per stratum. Close scrutiny had revealed that most strata were only used in the summer. Thus, ca. one thousand summers were assigned to each stratum. If, however, the site lay idle in winter and spring one would have expected substratification. Ideally, one would look for one thousand substrata for the one thousand summers. Yet, not even two substrata were discovered in any of the strata. They themselves were the substrata in the 4 m stratigraphy. They, thus, were not good for 60,000 but only for 55 years.
I tested this assumption with the tool count. According to the Binfords' research--done on North American Indians--each tribal adult has at least five tool kits with some eight tools in each of them. At every time 800 tools existed in a band of 20 adults. Assuming that each tool lasted an entire generation (15 female years), Combe Grenals 4,000 generations in 60,000 years should have produced some 3.2 million tools. By going closer to the actual life time of flint tools tens of millions of tools would have to be expected for Combe Grenal. Ony 19,000 (nineteen thousand) remains of tools, however, were found by the excavators.
There seems to be no way out but to cut down the age of Neanderthal man at Combe Grenal from some 60,000 to some 60 years.
I applied the stratigraphical approach to the best caves in Europe for the entire time from Erectus to the Iron Age and reached at the following tentative chronology for intelligent man:
-600 onwards Iron Age
-900 onwards Bronze Age
-1400 beginning of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
-1500 beginning of Neanderthal man
between -2000 and -1600 beginning of Erectus.
Since Erectus only left the two poor strata like at Swanscombe or El-Castillo/Spain, he should actually not have lasted longer than Neanderthal-may be one average life expectancy. I will now not go into the mechanism of mutation. All I want to remind you of is the undisputed sequence of interstratification and monostratification in the master stratigraphies. This allows for one solution only: Parents of the former developmental stage of man lived together with their own offspring in the same cave stratum until they died out. They were not massacred as textbooks have it:
monostrat.: only modern man's tools
interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and modern man's tools side by side
monostrat.: only Neanderthal man's tools
interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and Erectus' tools side by side
monotstrat.: only Erectus tools (deepest stratum for intelligent man)
The year figures certainly sound bewildering. Yet, so far nobody came up with any stratigraphy justifiably demanding more time than I tentatively assigned to the age of intelligent man. I always remind my critiques that one millennium is an enormous time span--more than from William the Conqueror to today's Anglo-World. To add a millenium to human history should always go together with sufficient material remains to show for it. I will not even mention the easiness with which scholars add a million years to the history of man until they made Lucy 4 million years old. The time-span-madness is the last residue of Darwinism.
The key statement in all of that might be "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable".
Our tools would be unrecognizable to George Washington, much less Julius Caesar. and that's just 200 - 2000 years; how could anybody believe that 60K years could go by and even neanderthals would not improve their tools noticeably??
“how could anybody believe that 60K years could go by and even neanderthals would not improve their tools noticeably??”
.
Easy!
If your world view and religion depend on it, you just believe.
Are you claiming that evoloserism is about lifestyles and not about science??
“and if most creationists knew any actual science...”
.
LOL!
Are there any athiests in Kary Mullis’ league?
How many atheists fuddled and muddled and DIDN’T discover Polymeraise Chain Reaction?
.
I suppose you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted?
Have a Yabba Dabba Doo Time!!!!!!
Your picture is blocked.
“There was no “raw meat and blood cells” in the samples you are talking about, and the scientist agrees that the samples were demineralized and have the fossilized remains of microstructure and some recognizable molecular fragments of collagen.”
.
Blatant falsehood!
The truth has been posted so many times in response to your lies that I would think that you would have tired of these attempts.
The scientist explained that the demineralization was to dissolve actual bone, and that there was actual soft tissue present.
Lie on!
Dr. Schweitzer agrees that it is millions of years old. She is not in any way shape or form a young Earth creationist, or simultaneous creation of all species creationist.
Discovery of actual dinosaur bone would be groundbreaking, because for SOME reason, it all seems fossilized; just as if it were millions of years old.
That's just from the one trex bone i.e. before you even get to the intact hadrosaur they're pulling apart out in LA...
The question was more or less whether or not evoloserism was mainly about lifestyles and not about science...
I guess we have to have the link posted again so that all here can see what a liar you are:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html
The words Mary Schwetzer used herself are soft tissue, and blood vessels..
From the article:
“It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html#ixzz0wAvaKmOQ
I didn’t realize that there was any question.
Evolooserism is pure religion and philosophy.
.
What? Still no answer about ERV’s? No answer for “trace elements”? No response to the latest data on Neanderthal DNA? No, you would rather move on to MORE mischaracterizations of actual science!
A Dabba Do Time! You'll have a GAY OLD time!
But all that is beside the point! The point is you have to lie and say it was bone when it was fossil!
Why is there such a lack of dinosaur bone? Why is it all fossil? Even fossil with preserved soft tissue structure that tests positive for protein fragments? Why isn't it actually “raw meat and blood cells” that you could get DNA or protein sequences from?
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.