|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total) |
| PaulK (1 member, 110 visitors)
|
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,414 Year: 1,060/14,102 Month: 52/411 Week: 73/168 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3494 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Common Ancestor? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Neanderthal and modern humans are on different branches of the tree. They split from one another several hundred thousand years ago. As such, there could not be a species between the two. There is a common ancestor if you go back to where the branching occurred. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In an experiment that shows how dog domestication could have been done, Russian scientists have done the same thing with the fox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think you should demand a recount on those numbers. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
No, not even close. They use the increasing differences (mutations) between two groups of organisms as shown in different parts of the DNA. I could explain how C14 dating works, but I'll let someone else explain the details of DNA dating. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I just have to ask: Where do you get this wretched stuff?
You have so many facts and dates wrong, yet you're peddling this stuff wholesale. Are you making all this up yourself, or is there some website full of it out there somewhere? 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
From Wiki: The term anatomically modern humans (AMH, also AMHS for "anatomically modern Homo sapiens") in paleoanthropology refers to individuals of Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans. The Omo skulls:
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What nonsense! Noah didn't live some 142,000 years ago. Written human history is some 5+ thousand years old, and the bible is more recent than that. The flood is generally agreed by biblical scholars to have occurred some 4,350 years ago. Your estimate is just plain nuts! The y-chromosome MRCA is something totally unrelated. You are letting religious myths overcome both common sense and firmly established data to the point that your arguments are total nonsense. You do neither yourself nor your claims any good by posting such easily-refuted gibberish. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
That's all nonsense, you know.
(See signature block.) 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over, without a shred of evidence. You have been corrected on numerous facts, over and over, but you still keep repeating the same nonsense.
And you complain that my mind is made up? Just once, would you back up a claim with real evidence? How about Chad, as requested on the other thread you are proposing? You are equating that to a biblical character. Problem is, you are off in your timing by about 7 million years. Care to provide evidence, as opposed to assertion, for that claim? 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
In post 21 of the thread that was not promoted, you state:
Science does not say that chad (tchadensis) was human. Note that specimen has Sahelanthropus for the genus, not Homo. Only genus Homo would be considered human. And where do you get three races? Science does not claim three. I've seen four, six, seven, and a whole series of higher numbers, all the way up to 60+ microraces and some obscure scheme numbering up into the hundreds. But three is not something I've seen any modern scientist claim. Maybe a hundred or more years ago. When I studied human races in grad school we followed Garn and Coon. Here is a good article on the subject by those two authors. They suggest either six or thirty, depending on your definition of terms: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../aa.1955.57.5.02a00060/pdf 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
At the risk of being on topic, I offer the following from Wiki:
The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor. http://en.wikipedia.org/...panzee-human_last_common_ancestor 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The point is, creationists will say anything that lets them maintain their beliefs in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. They can say whatever they want and it has all the effect of fleas thinking they are telling the dog where to go. They're a minor annoyance at best. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Science has a lot of evidence to present, while religion doesn't.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not of the genus Homo, although it may have been an ancestor, and as such you have no justification for calling it the first "man." Chad had ancestors, you know. You could just as easily go back to any of the other Miocene primates ancestral to Chad and call them the first "man." I suspect Chad is just the oldest specimen treated in that one book you have. Genus Homo actually began some millions of years after Chad. From Wiki: quote: So there are several things in which you are incorrect in your statement above. It would be best if you actually read that book you flash around so much, or read any of a number of other recent books on human evolution. How can you think you can convince people of the truth of your statements when they are so filled with easily debunked claims? Being wrong won't impress many people at all.
It has been pointed out by several posters how incorrect this is, but you keep repeating it. You seem to be preaching, more than debating, as you refuse to accept any evidence that shows you are wrong. (Again, see signature block.) 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your dates do not match those cited on Wiki. You are noting, correctly, based on the two citations you quote, that the fused chromosome occurred after the human-chimpanzee split. However, Wiki seems to place the Chad specimen 1 to 6 million years earlier and most importantly, the scientists involved do not place that specimen after the human-chimpanzee split. Opinions are still divided: quote: Once again, you are taking liberties with the data. And you are still claiming that the Chad specimen is Adam, the first human, while paleoanthropologists place Chad in a different genus entirely. How do you explain these discrepancies? 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 895 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There are not 22 species between Chad and modern humans. Many of those 22 species are side branches that died out! Here is a chart that shows some of that (click to enlarge):
http://www.cartage.org.lb/...ds/ChartHumanEvolution/evol.gif 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021