Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 6:56 PM
202 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1 (3 members, 199 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,095 Year: 18,918/29,783 Month: 863/2,043 Week: 415/386 Day: 72/107 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8384
85
86878889Next
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1261 of 1323 (842811)
11-08-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1257 by ringo
11-04-2018 1:11 PM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
False prophesy. Faith may be smaller in the US, but that does not mean creation belief in the world is dead. On the contrary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1257 by ringo, posted 11-04-2018 1:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by ringo, posted 11-09-2018 11:08 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1262 of 1323 (842812)
11-08-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1258 by RAZD
11-04-2018 1:38 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Long lives in Sumer and Scripture, and apparently China also all agree. Science has nothing to say about it. That renders your allusions to science agreeing with your foolish and baselsss doubts and beliefs rather useless in a science thread.
The changes in life spans are at the time of Peleg in the bible. There are also no angels living with women on earth after that time. There was also a division of language and how men understood/processed info at that time. There is also no fast growing trees in history after this time..etc.

It is amusing that someone that claims the universe was farted out of some small speck o soup, and that man is related to flatworms with no evidence at all would declare the records of antiquity to be 'meaningless'!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1258 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2018 1:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1264 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-08-2018 5:00 PM creation has responded
 Message 1265 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2018 9:23 AM creation has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1900
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1263 of 1323 (842814)
11-08-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1260 by creation
11-08-2018 3:48 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Show us any so called correlation then, that does not rest on the premise of a same nature in the past?

I don't know any so-called correlations, but you have been shown many correlations that are the evidence that actually prove there was never the kind of change in how the Universe works that you have fantasized about.

Many, many correlations are discussed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1260 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:48 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1269 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:56 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1900
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 1264 of 1323 (842818)
11-08-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1262 by creation
11-08-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Long lives in Sumer and Scripture, and apparently China also all agree.

All agree with what? Pure fiction.

Science has nothing to say about it.

I assume this is true, at least I am unaware of any scientist looking into it, let alone talking about it.

That renders your allusions to science agreeing with your foolish and baselsss doubts and beliefs rather useless in a science thread.

And that renders your illusions about science paying any attention to your foolish and unevidenced doubts and beliefs completely useless in a science thread. Pure fiction.

The changes in life spans are at the time of Peleg in the bible.

It's still fiction no matter how many times you say it.

There are also no angels living with women on earth after that time.

More fiction. Angels are imaginary.

There was also a division of language and how men understood/processed info at that time.

Fiction.

There is also no fast growing trees in history after this time..etc.

More imaginary, fictional fantasy.

Etc.? What the hell does that mean?

It is amusing that someone that claims the universe was farted out of some small speck o soup, and that man is related to flatworms with no evidence at all would declare the records of antiquity to be 'meaningless'!

That is pretty amusing. I hadn't ever heard the one about "the universe was farted out of some small speck o soup" before.

There is actually overwhelming evidence that humans are related to all other living organisms on this planet. The evidence is in our cellular structure and molecular biology.

What you are calling records of antiquity are not records at all; they are pure imaginary fictional fantasy. Not meaningless, but not history either.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1262 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:57 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1270 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:58 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1265 of 1323 (842853)
11-09-2018 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1262 by creation
11-08-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
Long lives in Sumer and Scripture, and apparently China also all agree. Science has nothing to say about it. ...

What science says is what the objective empirical evidence shows, and it does not show any lifespans of 150 years or greater.

Myths are not objective empirical evidence. Fossils are. There are no fossils showing that kind of age.

The changes in life spans are at the time of Peleg in the bible. ...

Myths are not objective empirical evidence. Fossils are. There are no fossils showing that kind of age. There is no objective empirical evidence showing that "Peleg" was a real person and not myth. The bible is not objective empirical evidence that "Peleg" was real and not myth. Scripture is not objective empirical evidence that "Peleg" was real and not myth.

Myths belong in classes on mythology, not in history or science classes.

It is amusing that someone that claims the universe was farted out of some small speck o soup, and that man is related to flatworms with no evidence at all would declare the records of antiquity to be 'meaningless'!

It is amusing how ignorant you are, yet feel you can talk with authority about things you don't know.

Another thing to teach in school -- how to base an argument on knowledge of the subject instead of made up junk opinions.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1262 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:57 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1268 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15766
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 1266 of 1323 (842864)
11-09-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1261 by creation
11-08-2018 3:50 PM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
creation writes:

False prophesy.


So you don't know what prophecy is either.

I'm not talking about what's going to happen in the future. I'm talking about what happened in the past: Creationism was kicked out of the schools in the past.

You're the one who is predicting that it will rise from the dead in the future.

Faith may be smaller in the US...

It isn't about faith. Most Christians accept evolution.

creation writes:

... but that does not mean creation belief in the world is dead.


In most of the Western world it's deader than it is in the US.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1261 by creation, posted 11-08-2018 3:50 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:53 PM ringo has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1267 of 1323 (843278)
11-15-2018 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1266 by ringo
11-09-2018 11:08 AM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
In post 1224 you said this

"Nope. Creationism is dead. The world will go on quite nicely without it."

That is false prophesy. You see the bible says all the world will be basically covered with the knowledge of God. Your prophesy is opposite.

Let's not pretend it was prophesy. Be honest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1266 by ringo, posted 11-09-2018 11:08 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1273 by ringo, posted 11-16-2018 11:04 AM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1268 of 1323 (843279)
11-15-2018 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1265 by RAZD
11-09-2018 9:23 AM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
What science covers/deals with the far past early history of man and what nature existed? None. Pretending science is needed/available to deal with this is not honest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1265 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2018 9:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1274 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2018 8:11 AM creation has responded
 Message 1275 by AZPaul3, posted 11-17-2018 4:48 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1269 of 1323 (843280)
11-15-2018 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1263 by Tanypteryx
11-08-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
No evidence exists or was shown that no change occurred. Beliefs were offered that we need to look at all things and interpret all things using the beliefs.

Others have beliefs also.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1263 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-08-2018 4:23 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1271 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-15-2018 9:37 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 1270 of 1323 (843281)
11-15-2018 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Tanypteryx
11-08-2018 5:00 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
You are not in the position to wave off all records of China and Sumer and Egypt and Scripture as fiction. Sorry.

Gong!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-08-2018 5:00 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1272 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-15-2018 9:47 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1900
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1271 of 1323 (843292)
11-15-2018 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1269 by creation
11-15-2018 7:56 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
No evidence exists or was shown that no change occurred.

And none is needed until you can demonstrate that your fantasy is anything but BS.

Beliefs were offered that we need to look at all things and interpret all things using the beliefs.

Others have beliefs also.

I made no mention of beliefs. Your beliefs are based on your fantasies and are extremely unlikely to be taught in science classes in public schools.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1269 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:56 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1900
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1272 of 1323 (843293)
11-15-2018 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1270 by creation
11-15-2018 7:58 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
You are not in the position to wave off all records of China and Sumer and Egypt and Scripture as fiction.

And I did not wave off anything but what you said.

You cannot show a single record from China, Sumer, or Egypt that agree with anything in your fictional scriptures about longevity. You just made that up so it is fiction. Gong.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1270 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:58 PM creation has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15766
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1273 of 1323 (843319)
11-16-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1267 by creation
11-15-2018 7:53 PM


Re: This is a thread about what should be taught in school
creation writes:

In post 1224 you said this
"Nope. Creationism is dead. The world will go on quite nicely without it."

That is false prophesy.


Nope. The world has been doing quite nicely without creationism for 150 years. There is no reason to think it will not continue to go on nicely without creationism. For example, we've managed to invent, aviation, electronics, etc. without creationism.

creation writes:

You see the bible says all the world will be basically covered with the knowledge of God.


You're misunderstanding what the knowledge of God is.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1267 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:53 PM creation has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 1274 of 1323 (843377)
11-17-2018 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1268 by creation
11-15-2018 7:54 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
What science covers/deals with the far past early history of man and what nature existed? None. Pretending science is needed/available to deal with this is not honest.

This thread is about what we should teach in school and whether both evolution and religion should be taught in public schools in the US.

One way to teach learning is to ask questions, so let's ask the question: what can we learn about early humans and the world they live in?

Your answer: nothing. Because you can't know the past nature (whatever that may be).

MY answer: a lot.

First we define the process of Evolution:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Then we note that this is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.

Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.

Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.

The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.

Next, if we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from and unknown in the earlier parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.

With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species.

Where A, B, C and G represent speciation events and the common ancestor populations of a clade that includes the common ancestor species and all their descendants: C and below form a clade that is part of the B clade, B and below form a clade that is also part of the A clade; G and below also form a clade that is also part of the A clade, but the G clade is not part of the B clade.

The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

At this point we can pause and note that creationism claims that animals and plants etc are divided into created "kinds" and that each "kind" reproduces after their "kind" ... cows beget cows, dogs beget dogs, etc but cows do not beget dogs. Thus there is a "bovine kind" and a "canine kind" ... and they can microevolve from the original created "kind" to a family of related species -- the "bovine kind" evolving into all the species of cows, buffalos, etc. and the "canine kind" evolving into all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.

If we compare this to the diagram above we see that all descendants of (A) have each been begat by their parents according to their breeding population at the time. That the breeding pattern of creationist "kinds" matches the pattern of clades, and that there is a "bovine clade" and a "canine clade" ... and the question then becomes what is the original population? Is there a definite original original population that did not evolve from an older parent population? How can we find this out?

Your answer: you can't. Because you can't know the past nature (whatever that may be).

MY answer: by looking at the evidence of the past and seeing what it tells us.

First we define the Theory of Evolution:

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

And we note that this theory can be tested by:

  • experiments and field observations carried out as part of the sciences of biology, ecology and evolution.
  • the fossil record, by comparing fossils to see the relationships in location and time and see how species have evolved from species, we can look for the "original created kind" for each living species by tracing their ancestry into the past. And
  • the genetic record, by comparing genomes of living species to each other and to genomes of past species (neanderthals for instance), we can see how the DNA has changed from parent populations to daughter populations, and we can look to see if there is a point at which there was an "original created kind" or whether the pattern of descent keeps extending into the past.

If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations. We can look for this happening in the past.

If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern, and we can look for this happening in the past.

For instance, we can look at the fossil record for Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


Pelycodus is from a group of creatures which collectively are thought to be the ancestors of modern monkeys and apes. The diagram represents the whole of the early Eocene, spanning very approximately 55 million years ago to 50 million years ago. The fossils are from sediment in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming.

Each horizontal line shows the range, the mean, and the standard error of the mean. As you can see from the ranges, a larger sample would have been nice.

This is not a new result. Matthew noted in 1915 that these populations were evolving steadily, not only in size, but also in other characters not clearly correlated with size. The diagram is based on

Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals, American Journal of Science 276:1-28.

Gingerich has since extended this work, but the conclusion has not changed.


Here we can observe both anagenesis in the changes from population to population, level by level, and cladogenesis in the division of the populations at the top.

Similar study can be done with DNA comparisons:

quote:
Complete Neanderthal Genome Sequenced
DNA Signatures Found in Present-Day Europeans and Asians, But Not In Africans

Bethesda, Md., Thurs., May 6, 2010 - Researchers have produced the first whole genome sequence of the 3 billion letters in the Neanderthal genome, and the initial analysis suggests that up to 2 percent of the DNA in the genome of present-day humans outside of Africa originated in Neanderthals or in Neanderthals' ancestors.

he current fossil record suggests that Neanderthals, or Homo neanderthalensis, diverged from the primate line that led to present-day humans, or Homo sapiens, some 400,000 years ago in Africa. Neanderthals migrated north into Eurasia, where they became a geographically isolated group that evolved independently from the line that became modern humans in Africa. They lived in Europe and western Asia, as far east as southern Siberia and as far south as the Middle East.

Approximately 30,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared. That makes them the most recent, extinct relative of modern humans, as both Neanderthals and humans share a common ancestor from about 800,000 years ago. Chimpanzees diverged from the same primate line some 5 million to 7 million years ago.

The researchers compared DNA samples from the bones of three female Neanderthals who lived some 40,000 years ago in Europe to samples from five present-day humans from China, France, Papua New Guinea, southern Africa and western Africa. This provided the first genome-wide look at the similarities and differences of the closest evolutionary relative to humans, and maybe even identifying, for the first time, genetic variations that gave rise to modern humans.

To understand the genomic differences between present-day humans and Neanderthals, the researchers compared subtle differences in the Neanderthal genome to the genomes found in DNA from the five people, as well as to chimpanzee DNA. An analysis of the genetic variation showed that Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 percent identical to present-day human DNA, and 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee DNA. Present-day human DNA is also 98.8 percent identical to chimpanzee.

"The genomic calculations showed good correlation with the fossil record," said coauthor Jim Mullikin, Ph.D., an NHGRI computational geneticist and acting director of the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center. "According to our results, the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans went their separate ways about 400,000 years ago."


So once again we can see that anagenesis has occurred in the evolution of humans and neanderthals from a common ancestor by the 99.7 percent similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and we can see cladogenesis by the 0.3% differences that have built up since divergence from a common ancestor.

Likewise we can see that anagenesis has occurred in the evolution of humans and neanderthals and chimpanzees from a common ancestor by the 98.8 percent similarity inherited from a common ancestor, and we can see cladogenesis by the 1.2% differences that have built up since divergence from a common ancestor.

So the ToE predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

Furthermore, there has been no evidence of this process halting at some common point in time that would indicate diversification from an original common ancestor "kind" -- either after Noah (circa 4,500 years ago), nor from original creation (circa 6,000 years ago). The evidence shows that the creationist interpretation of the bible is in error. The earliest common ancestor found is single cell organisms back at the dawn of life.

We can know parts of the past by studying the evidence that has been left for us to find and study, with the brains we have been given, to understand what has happened ... to the best of our abilities to understand.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1268 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:54 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1277 by creation, posted 11-19-2018 1:56 PM RAZD has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3530
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1275 of 1323 (843441)
11-17-2018 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1268 by creation
11-15-2018 7:54 PM


Re: Conclusion vs Assumption, Belief, teach the difference
What science covers/deals with the far past early history of man and what nature existed?

All of it.

Pretending science is needed/available to deal with this is not honest.

Wow.

So you actually believe that there were no processes in the past that left any evidence of their workings in the present? That if any of the physical constants were significantly different in the recent past (geologically speaking) we could not see those differences in what they left behind?

How utterly ignorant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1268 by creation, posted 11-15-2018 7:54 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1276 by creation, posted 11-19-2018 1:50 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8384
85
86878889Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018