Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 10:10 PM
395 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, jar, nwr, Riggamortis (5 members, 390 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,380 Year: 16,986/21,208 Month: 2,875/3,593 Week: 342/646 Day: 105/115 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   All in the Family - Guest star: Neanderthal
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 96 (278196)
01-11-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
01-11-2006 2:51 AM


Re: Evolutionists have been trying to set the record straight since the 50s
Look at those who just answered the question about what they were taught rather than the spin game.

as i recall, you accused those who answered of playing the spin game.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 2:51 AM randman has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 96 (278198)
01-11-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
01-11-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Now that you're back...
Why don't you start a thread raising this issue then?

We are talking about Neanderthals here.

yes, we are. i'm trying to establish the basis for your identification of neanderthals as the same species as homo sapiens -- and exactly WHAT you consider ape-like, let alone excessively ape-like.

where do you draw the line between "ape with human features" and "human with ape features," or do you not see any ape features present?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 2:52 AM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by kofh2u, posted 09-02-2013 10:46 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 1426 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 78 of 96 (278239)
01-11-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Nuggin
01-11-2006 1:31 PM


Re: link
Hello Nuggins,

probably it´s not a bad idea to consult additionally some more recent studies to ponder whether humans and neanderthals admixed.

In [1] the authors show by a comparision of mtDNA of early modern human and neanderthals that there is no evidence for interbreeding. The mtDNA analysed does cover some of the claimed neanderthale/cro-magnon hybrids. The article excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.

The next study [2], based on a more realistic model of range expansion, shows that under this assumptions the maximum interbreeding rate is less than 0.1 %. If confirmed this would mean that early modern humans and neanderthales practically did not interbreed, and therefore should be treated as different species.

-Bernd


References

[1] http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057

[2] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=532389


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Nuggin, posted 01-11-2006 1:31 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:30 PM bernd has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2344 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 79 of 96 (278336)
01-11-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by bernd
01-11-2006 5:08 PM


Re: link
They are comparing figures from samples of modern populations, not the human population from that era, as one of the scientists quoted states, and thus the assertion that such genetic studies indicate 2 species is flawed, at least according to the scientists in the links provided.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by bernd, posted 01-11-2006 5:08 PM bernd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by bernd, posted 01-12-2006 5:12 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 81 by bernd, posted 01-12-2006 7:38 AM randman has not yet responded

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 1426 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 80 of 96 (278380)
01-12-2006 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-11-2006 11:30 PM


Fossils used by Serre et al.
Hello Randman,

when you state:


They are comparing figures from samples of modern populations, not the human population from that era, as one of the scientists quoted states, and thus the assertion that such genetic studies indicate 2 species is flawed, at least according to the scientists in the links provided.

I assume you are referring to the links you provided and specifically to the following quote:


"The problem with the DNA research was the interpretation," Dr. Trinkaus said. "It's demonstrably wrong. All that they showed is that Neanderthal biology is outside the range of living humans, not modern Homo sapiens back then."

Please note that the article of Serre et al. [1] addresses the criticism of Trinkaus. They describe their method in their introduction:


Thus, we did not attempt to determine DNA sequences that are similar to present-day human mtDNA. Instead, we determined whether Neandertal-like mtDNA sequences were present or absent in well-preserved remains of Neandertals and of early modern humans.

But maybe the problem lies in the term "early modern humans". Please have a look at the following link [2], which lists the fossils used by Serre et al.

-Bernd


References

[1] Serre et al.
[2] Serre et al., Table 1

This message has been edited by bernd, 12-Jan-2006 11:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:30 PM randman has not yet responded

  
bernd
Member (Idle past 1426 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 81 of 96 (278387)
01-12-2006 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-11-2006 11:30 PM


Additional links
Hello Randman,

here some additional links.

First a recent taxonomic study which supports the hypothesis that neanderthals and modern humans are distinct species [1]. I quote the abstract:


The taxonomic status of Neanderthals lies at the center of the modern human origins debate. Proponents of the single-origin model often view this group as a distinct species with little or no contribution to the evolution of modern humans. Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans. Paleontologists generally agree that fossil species should be equivalent to extant ones in the amount of their morphological variation. Recognition of fossil species therefore hinges on analogy to living species. A previous study by one of the authors and recent work by other researchers [Schillachi, M. A. & Froelich, J. W. (2001) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 115, 157–166] have supported specific status for Neanderthals based on analogy to chimpanzees and Sulawesi macaques, respectively. However, these taxa may not be the most appropriate models for Pleistocene humans. Here we test the hypothesis that Neanderthals represent a subspecies of H. sapiens by comparing the degree of their morphological differentiation from modern humans to that found within and between 12 species of extant primates. The model taxa comprised >1,000 specimens, including phylogenetic (modern humans and African apes) and ecological (eight papionin taxa) models for Pleistocene humans. Morphological distances between model taxon pairs were compared to the distances between Neanderthals and modern humans obtained by using a randomization technique. Results strongly support a specific distinction for Neanderthals

Then another Neanderthal mtDNA study, whose abstract states:


During the late Pleistocene, early anatomically modern humans coexisted in Europe with the anatomically archaic Neandertals for some thousand years. Under the recent variants of the multiregional model of human evolution, modern and archaic forms were different but related populations within a single evolving species, and both have contributed to the gene pool of current humans. Conversely, the Out-of-Africa model considers the transition between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans as the result of a demographic replacement, and hence it predicts a genetic discontinuity between them. Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neandertals. This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neandertals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool.

The third articles analyses Neanderthal mtDNA data from the iberian peninsula [3] concluding that “Iberian Neanderthals were not genetically distinct from those of other regions” and


An estimate of effective population size indicates that the genetic history of the Neandertals was not shaped by an extreme population bottleneck associated with the glacial maximum of 130,000 years ago. A high level of polymorphism at sequence position 16258 reflects deeply rooted mtDNA lineages, with the time to the most recent common ancestor at ca. 250,000 years ago. This coincides with the full emergence of the "classical" Neandertal morphology and fits chronologically with a proposed speciation event of Homo neanderthalensis.

-Bernd


References

[1] Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences
[2] Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans
[3] Neandertal Evolutionary Genetics: Mitochondrial DNA Data from the Iberian Peninsula

This message has been edited by bernd, 12-Jan-2006 01:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:30 PM randman has not yet responded

  
CurveballJesus
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 96 (281497)
01-25-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
01-08-2006 1:22 AM


Re: not this again
How effective is basing the relative size of a population on one beings remains? What if a future race comes along in a million years and finds the remains of Yao Ming? Will they think that we were a face of seven foot tall people? I have friends who range from 6-9 to 4-10 and pretty much everywhere in between. I think that basing an entire race's size on a single remains is jumping the gun a little.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2006 1:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 11:57 AM CurveballJesus has not yet responded
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 01-25-2006 3:37 PM CurveballJesus has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 96 (281498)
01-25-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by CurveballJesus
01-25-2006 11:54 AM


Re: not this again
What if a future race comes along in a million years and finds the remains of Yao Ming?

The odds that they will do so, though, is astronomical. It's a virtual certainty that the remains they find will be from humans of rather average size, so basing a tentative conclusion about the height of a population from one individual isn't as outrageous as you make it seem.

Nobody who does that pretends they have anything definitive, but establishing a tentative range from one individual isn't as invalid as you might think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by CurveballJesus, posted 01-25-2006 11:54 AM CurveballJesus has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 96 (281544)
01-25-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by CurveballJesus
01-25-2006 11:54 AM


Re: not this again
How effective is basing the relative size of a population on one beings remains?

not very. it's a good thing we have more than one.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by CurveballJesus, posted 01-25-2006 11:54 AM CurveballJesus has not yet responded

  
Barbarian
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 96 (288345)
02-19-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coragyps
01-08-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Hybrid
Please bear with a Computer Sciences major having trouble with terminology here ...

Coragyps quoted PNAS wrt. the Portugal find of an apparent cross between neanderthals and sapiens sapiens:

quote:
Body proportions, reflected in femorotibial lengths and diaphyseal robusticity plus tibial condylar displacement, as well as mandibular symphyseal retreat and thoracohumeral muscle insertions, align the skeleton with the Neandertals.

Earlier, Nuggin listed the distinctive characteristics of neanderthals and said:
quote:
But more telling is the shoulder muscle lay out. Neanderthals had an additional muscle in the shoulder, not present in modern man.

Question: is the "thoracohumeral muscle" mentioned in the PNAS article the same as the extra muscle in the shoulder of the neanderthals?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 01-08-2006 11:19 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2006 2:26 PM Barbarian has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8782
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 86 of 96 (288363)
02-19-2006 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Barbarian
02-19-2006 12:51 PM


guessing
Not being an anatomist, I'm guessing.

Howver, thoro - humeral sure sounds like a muscle from the chest to the upper arm to me.

PS -- Welcome to EvC!!

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-19-2006 02:26 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Barbarian, posted 02-19-2006 12:51 PM Barbarian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Quetzal, posted 02-19-2006 2:42 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3317 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 87 of 96 (288364)
02-19-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by NosyNed
02-19-2006 2:26 PM


Re: guessing
Close enough. The thoracohumeral muscle group includes the latissimus dorsi and pectoralis major, and are the thingies that allow you to lift and move your arms and shoulders, etc. Attachment points for some muscles (c.f., pectoralis major) were apparently slightly different in neanderthalensis (however you define them - species or subspecies) than in anatomically modern humans like cro-magnon according to the Duarte article. I love how taxonomists and especially human taxonomists like to pee all over each others' research. Human evolution has to be the nastiest branch of evolutionary biology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2006 2:26 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 88 of 96 (692499)
03-04-2013 5:49 AM


Bump for 666Archangel777
This seems to be as good of a place as any, for your Neanderthal fixation.

Other forum topic resources can be found by using the forum search utility:

Search term: Neanderthal
Search Forum or Category: All open forums
Search by Messages or Thread Titles: select Thread Titles

I'd give you a link directly to the results, but it doesn't work that way.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that.

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 833 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 89 of 96 (700018)
05-29-2013 1:58 PM


... Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)

I. THE "CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION"
CONTROVERSY, OR: "MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING"

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi﷓scientific manner. 128

In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the "pro-evolution" argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.

... The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

... Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.

If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. What is time to God other than a necessary process? Time is not the barrier to Him that it is to us. Why should we not expect God to have used eons of time to bring about life as we know it? Why do some people insist that God brought about life instantaneously: would such a means really be any more miraculous?

Furthermore, in any supernatural manifestations to man of a magnitude that would leave archeologically verifiable traces, we should expect that God would likewise use a natural means of accomplishing such stupendous events﷓ a means in accordance with the laws of the physical universe.

According to the ramifications of free will, then, whenever traces of Gods actions are of a nature or magnitude sufficient to leave verifiable traces, He will accomplish these actions in conformity to the laws of the physical universe. Thus, we should logically expect that evolution was used by God to form man and that catastrophism was used by God in His major supernatural dealings with man. Also, just as any skillful artist will personally put the final finishing touches on a great masterpiece, we should expect to find subtle traces of direct divine intervention.
In the three following subsections, I will put forward both Scriptural and scientific evidence substantiating that all three of these processes﷓evolution, catastrophism, and direct divine intervention﷓ have indeed occurred.

Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.

The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.

This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre﷓Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.

How did God solve this problem?

And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21﷓23)

It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman.

The sixty﷓four dollar question: Who was Cain's wife?

It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain's wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ﷓ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?

Cain's wife was one of the offspring of Adam's heterozygous contemporaries.

If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn't God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.


Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 05-31-2013 1:03 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2013 3:41 AM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Theodoric, posted 05-31-2013 4:03 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 90 of 96 (700201)
05-31-2013 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulGL
05-29-2013 1:58 PM


Another myth?
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.

Are there any merits to the "pro-Creation" arguments that do not rely on mere myth as their "evidence?"


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulGL, posted 05-29-2013 1:58 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017