front loading: did evos get it backwards

randman writes:The fact that contrary to ND, we don't see a gradual evolving of new genes as new traits are acquired but that all these types of genes pre-existed the theoritical evolution of plant and animal lineages just cannot be, eh?

Coyote writes:It doesn't look like Neanderthals evolved into H. sapiens. The two lines split something like 500,000 years ago and Neanderthal just took a long time going extinct.

www.wikipedia.org writes: H. neanderthalensis lived from about 250,000 to as recent as 30,000 years ago. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: there is ongoing debate over whether the 'Neanderthal Man' was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens.[23] While the debate remains unsettled, evidence from mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA sequencing indicates that little or no gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species.[24] In 1997, Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans . Neanderthals are not our ancestors." Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA supported these findings.[25] However, supporters of the multiregional hypothesis point to recent studies indicating non-African nuclear DNA heritage dating to one mya,[26] although the reliability of these studies has been questioned.[27]

NewScientist writes:Neanderthals may have also boasted the genes for language, Trinkaus says. Last year, researchers discovered that Neanderthals shared a version of a gene called FOXP2 with humans.

NewScientist writes:"There has been a consensus that the modern human mind turned on like a light switch about 50,000 years ago, only in Africa," says Hopkinson. But the putatively modern traits accompanying the change, such as abstract art, the use of grindstones and elongated stone blades, and big game hunting began to accumulate in Africa from 300,000 years ago, he says. "It was the same in Europe with Neanderthals, there was a gradual accumulation of technology." If Homo sapiens developed human traits gradually, then why not Neanderthals?

organicmachination writes:Just because we carry the same Foxp2 gene, it doesn't mean that Neandarthals directly evolved into Humans.

organicmachination writes:If HN. evolved into HSS., then neither could be extant alongside the other. Populations evolve, not individuals, and if HN. evolved directly into modern humans, then by the time we came to be, HN. would not exist as a species.

organicmachination writes: Mice and Humans share the same Stra8 gene. Are mice and humans the same species?

wikipedia.org writes:The FOXP2 protein sequence is highly conserved. Similar FOXP2 proteins can be found in songbirds, fish, and reptiles such as alligators.[13][14] Aside from a polyglutamine tract, human FOXP2 differs from chimp FOXP2 by only two amino acids, mouse FOXP2 by only 3 amino acids, and zebra finch FOXP2 by only 7 amino acids.[15][16][16] Some researchers have speculated that the two amino acid differences between chimps and humans led to the evolution of language in humans.[15] Others, however, have been unable to find a clear association between species with learned vocalizations and similar mutations in FOXP2.[13][14] Both human mutations occur in an exon with no known function. It is also likely, based on general observations of development and songbird results, that any difference between humans and non-humans would be due to regulatory sequence divergence (affecting where and when FOXP2 is expressed) rather than the two amino acid differences mentioned above.[3]

wikipedia.com writes:A recent extraction of DNA from Neanderthal bones indicates that Neanderthals had the same version (allele) of the FOXP2 gene that is known to play a role in human language.

randman writes:What we are talking about is the general pattern of theoritical genetic evolution. One would expect exceptions to the pattern, but you cannot pick a small portion, say, of supposed evolution as evidence one way or another.

randman writes: The point is what NeoDarwinism predicts and what it predicts is a rough parellel with morphology and the genome due to random mutations being adapted to a wider population group via natural selection so that smaller mutations and changes gradually build up to larger-scale evolution.

randman writes:The problem with the ND story (myth?) is that it doesn't fit the facts. We have very simple organisms with massive genomes and evolution from the LCA via loss of genes. This is the picture the front loaders predicted, not the Darwinists. Keep in mind you have to take a look at the whole picture, not a small slice.

Force writes:N.D. predicts that from generation to generation there is loss of genetic information, for said populations, but for new genetic information.

randman writes:Can you clarify that? Seems like you left a word out.

randman writes:Evos consider molecular studies on current animals as evidence for preexisting and extinct animals that are there theoritical common ancestors. So for evos, they consider it "falsifiable."

randman writes:Evos consider molecular studies on current animals as evidence for preexisting and extinct animals that are there theoritical common ancestors. So for evos, they consider it "falsifiable."

randman writes:Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.

Randman writes:you should probably just read this thread and learn something rather than try to engage in debate. You apparently have no clue as to how evos do indeed do molecular studies on current species to infer conclusions on the theoritical last common ancestor. Sad you are participating without bothering to read the OP.