Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

quote:

---

Perhaps WE are off thread here however the Bible has proved wrong in nothing. Indeed if it was by herders it would be a laughing stock to claim truth. Yet rather it is held to be true by a good portion of the most intelligent and successful people in history. Americans (and some Canadians). If the best people hold something to be true , especially the Puritan Protestant wing, this is a great prompt to its accuracy. If backward countries like Mexico or Bulgaria or Bangladesh or Israel instead held the Bible as true and We didn't then you might have a case.

---

Those intelligent and successful people hold the Bible to be THEOLOGICALLY true, not scientifically true. Most christians do not take Gensis literally, but do think it is true.

The neanderthals are just celts and germans early in Europe.
That doesn't count.
For the great claim of descent of people from apes etc the evidence? is is so sparse as to defy credibility in any reasonable person of descent. I don't mean you for you belive in the whole Toe package. however to a regular person to see great conclusion drawn from such limited data points out why evolution is easily assialed in America.
rob

I've had this arguement before on this forum.
When I say infancy I mean in abny practical way. A century ago was just hypothesising. anyways a century to me is infancy. This is a primitive field however utilized. And its claims of ancesterism is untestable. Just as when it is used to today in paternity suits it is testable. Its further claims are speculation.
Again with the tasmanian wolf and our wolf!
I've offered this as a example of how DNA fails. I would say the marsupialism is what distorts the Dna out of proportion from its relative our wolf. Speculation however.
Rob

This is not my point. I said the Puritan protestant part of the population especially as a part of the 50% of America that thinks evolution is wrong is proof of the bible's credible claims.
This is exactually the way it would be if the Bible is true. If the Bible was not true America should be the last place to champion it.
rob

Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? What do you say about the mitochondrial DNA studies that suggest that the neanderthals are a seperate species from Homo Sapiens? (http://dsc.discovery.com/...briefs/20030512/neanderthal.html) Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? I couldn't give a shit about what a "regular person" thinks. Science is based on evidence not popular opinion.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 10-08-2004 03:44 PM

---

*not an actual doctor

And when I say that you are wrong about that, I mean that DNA research has been under practical use for almost 20 years. DNA phylogenetics is now a process run by first-year graduate students using mail-order desktop kits. There's no way that it can be said to be in it's "infancy". So, you don't drive in automobiles, because the technology of the internal combustion gasoline engine is in it's infancy? You never board airplanes because the technology is in its infancy? You've never used a cell phone because the technology is in its infancy?You're not sitting at a computer, right now, using the internet, because these technologies are in their infancy? Oh, wait, you are.You must be a liar, then. By failing to detect a relationship between two species that are not related? And you think that a true negative constitutes a refutation of the test? Sounds like its working just fine to me.

quote:

---

The neanderthals are just celts and germans early in Europe.
That doesn't count.

---

Patently false nonsense Robert. Please save yourself some humiliation and actually research these topics BEFORE
making such ill informed assertions.Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30. Related Articles, LinksComment in:
Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):1-3.Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S.Zoological Institute, University of Munich, Germany.DNA was extracted from the Neandertal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany. By sequencing clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was determined. Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil. Sequence comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neandertal sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans. Furthermore, the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is estimated to be four times greater than that of the common ancestor of human mtDNAs. This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.Nat Genet. 2000 Oct;26(2):144-6. Related Articles, LinksA view of Neandertal genetic diversity.Krings M, Capelli C, Tschentscher F, Geisert H, Meyer S, von Haeseler A, Grossschmidt K, Possnert G, Paunovic M, Paabo S.PLoS Biol. 2004 Mar;2(3):E57. Epub 2004 Mar 16. Related Articles, LinksNo Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans.Serre D, Langaney A, Chech M, Teschler-Nicola M, Paunovic M, Mennecier P, Hofreiter M, Possnert G G, Paabo S.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany.The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.There are several more molecular studies and a ton of morphological studies.Any reasonable person would know about this before claiming that neandertals were German/Celts

Your opposition to what I said about Neandthals being Germans, Celts, or Basques etc fails in two ways from your info.first the study brings up the old AGE thing. This age estimating is not solid by creationist standards and relying on it to make your point about another matter is forcing us to accept a premise we don't accept.The difference between the DNA of neaderthals and present people as described by you settles the matter. DNA is changable and not reliable to demonstrate ancestry. I did not know that the DNA was taken from Neanderthals. Well, well well there it is.If Neadrrthals were people descendent from the Ark then it has been settled that DNA is changeable and not indicative of ancestry as Toe tries to say.
Very interesting indeed . Two for the price of one.
Rob

You either accept it or show what is wrong with it (I suggest the correlations thread that has recently been active) or it isn't worth your bothering to use it as an arguement against anything.Your inability to accept a well documented conclusion doesn't mean you get to use it in a discussion without showing what is wrong with the conclusion. Lots of creationist (YEC's) don't accept it. Many here have been invited to show what is wrong with it.Few even try. None have answers that stand up to the simplest of scrutiny.

Hi Robert,Just as a point of clarification: If you re-read the two abstracts, you'll see that nowhere is any mention of age, either relative or absolute. They are simply comparing two DNA patterns and discovering that H. neanderthalensis mitochondrial DNA contains sequences that are NOT FOUND in H. sapiens. Not just different karyotypes, as could be found between two subpopulations of the same species, but completely different sequences. IOW, based on the studies, (and the larger sample size in the second study is more significant), the DNA sequences come from separate species. Has nothing to do with age at all.Nuclear DNA is changeable to a greater or lesser extent, mtDNA is often much more conserved, which is why it is used in this type of study. You might have an argument if the comparison was nuclear DNA. Since it's mtDNA they're comparing, the differences are more likely to be significant.

quote:

---

first the study brings up the old AGE thing. This age estimating is not solid by creationist standards and relying on it to make your point about another matter is forcing us to accept a premise we don't accept.

---

As Quetzal points out, the age is not an issue so you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. Second, creationists have no standards. They accept their premise a priori and that is that regardless of fact or reality.

quote:

---

The difference between the DNA of neaderthals and present people as described by you settles the matter. DNA is changable and not reliable to demonstrate ancestry. I did not know that the DNA was taken from Neanderthals. Well, well well there it is.

---

The utter nonsense of this statement is mind boggling. If DNA never ever changed from one individual to the next then it would be unreliable for demonstrating ancestry. It is precisely because it is variable that one can trace the differences within related lineages. You are proposing that if we were all clones and identical that then it would be possible to determine ancestry? Please demonstrate how that would work.It is also clear that you did not know that DNA sequences have been retrieved from multiple nendertal samples just as it is clear that you were completely unaware of the genetic variation and the multiple species of coelocanths's (your unchanging fish example). However, this has not prevented you from making unsupportable assertions based on this ignorance.

quote:

---

If Neadrrthals were people descendent from the Ark then it has been settled that DNA is changeable and not indicative of ancestry as Toe tries to say.
Very interesting indeed . Two for the price of one.

---

Yes two for the price of one..first nothing about age was mentioned in either paper so Robert Byers error 1. And second, I can trace your relatedness to your parents by analyzing your mtDNA. This has been used from everything from forensics to medicine with a near perfect record. If you disagree with this statment, please demonstrate how genetics does not in fact work and that DNA has nothing to do with heredity. In addition, if you can, than you have demonstrated that you are in no way related to your parents. Good luck If neandertals were a bunch of Germans, they would have a middle European mtDNA haplotype. Instead, they have an mtDNA sequence that falls outside of the bulk of human mtDNA genetic diversity. Chimpanzee mtDNA diverstiy falls even farther outside...whales yet farther...kangaroo's farther still. Thus, neandertals are closely related to humans but a distinct group.If the Ark myth were true, there would be almost no human genetic diversty as 6,000 years is not enough time for DNA to differentiate as demostrated by biochemical studies of mutation rates of DNA polymerases...so tough turds for creationists because said genetic diversity (among other things ) falsifies your quaint little animals in a boat story.

The age thing perhaps I misunderstood.I read "...the age of the common ancester of the neaderthals and modern humans..." etc and thought it was some point. No matter.You said the DNA means the two are different species. Well back it up with evidence.
i would say the great difference in DNA shows how changeable in a short time DNA is. And so unreliable as a guide to ancient ancestry.
Neaders and us are the same people. Neaders spoke either German celt or Basque etc.
Rob

The age thing I explained in the post before this.You say the neaderthals should have a particular sequence of DNA etc.if they are related to europeons.
And you say 6000 years is not long enough to have DNA drift etc.
Well thats just the point. That this did happen in both cases
demonstrates (though not prove) DNA is very changable and not indictive of ancestry history in time and connection.
THat is on creationists assumption that neanderthals are people from the Ark.What I'm trying to say here is that either these neaderthals are indeed a different species of human and not from the Ark and so proving the Bible wrong on this point OR
DNA is not reliable as it is now used in Toe to draw conclusions about ancestry as is always brought up to me.
Indeed DNA studies is in a primitive state is clear now to me and the claim of DNA as a point against us in these discussions has been nullified as we see it. And so the future counter arguement is born.
Rob

quote:

---

Neaders and us are the same people. Neaders spoke either German celt or Basque etc.

---

Whaaat??

Robert, why the FUCK do you think he quoted papers that gave the evidence instead of just asserting bullshit claims as you tend to... er, always do? Really, why do you think that is?