The Common Ancestor?

There hasn't been any other species between Neanderthal and modern humans is there in the fossil record?

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.

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.

We are closer to a rat that is 88% identical compared to a chimp 70% identical. Common ancestry is not very convincing to me at all.

I think you should demand a recount on those numbers.

---

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

Is carbon dating of bones used in the model?

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.

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?

They are going back only as far as Moidern [sic] man who appeared about 142,000 years ago.

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.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.

The Omo skulls:

"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago." So you can read yourself that modern humans evolved ABOUT 200,000 years ago, but only we living today avoided extinction because our Y-chromosome is linked to just one man, presumably Noah, who lived 142,000 years ago. ?

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.

That's all nonsense, you know.

(See signature block.)

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?

Be more spcific, I don't recall any issue about "chad."

In post 21 of the thread that was not promoted, you state:

Science and the Bible both say that the first evolution from apes was the first fo the 22 now extinct species of humans that lead to the three racial stocks that further developed into us, the people living today. Hence, as the best guesses of Paleontogy and Theology, that would be Sahelanthropus tchadensis.

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

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.

In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup.[citation needed] The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
Time estimates

The age of the CHLCA is an estimate. The fossil find of Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis are closest in age and expected morphology to the CHLCA and suggest the LCA (last common ancestor) is older than 7 million years. The earliest studies of apes suggested the CHLCA may have been as old as 25 million years; however, protein studies in the 1970s suggested the CHLCA was less than 8 million years in age. Genetic methods based on Orangutan/Human and Gibbon/Human LCA times were then used to estimate a Chimpanzee/Human LCA of 6 million years, and LCA times between 5 and 7 million years ago are currently used in the literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...panzee-human_last_common_ancestor

This is a similarity argument. Creationists claim that this is merely a result of a common creator.

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.

There are 11 science forums and 5 religious forums,

Science has a lot of evidence to present, while religion doesn't.

An excellent example was when Percy rejected my thread based on his demand that I produce evidence that Adam could be understood as equivalent to Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man." Hence, the first man, Adam, in Genesis corresponds directly with what Science now suggests was Sahelanthropus tchadensis who lived seven million years ago.

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:

---

Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them. The genus is estimated to be about 2.3 to 2.4 million years old, possibly having evolved from australopithecine ancestors, with the appearance of Homo habilis...

The most salient physiological development between the earlier Australopith species and Homo is the increase in cranial capacity, from about 450 cm3 (27 cu in) in A. garhi to 600 cm3 (37 cu in) in H. habilis.

---

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.

That is ALSO the approximated date when by an Act-of-God, a surrogate mother Ape with 24 chromosomes experienced the chemical fusion of two chromosomes, hence evolving the new creature in God's world with only 23 chromosomes, i.e.the first man, again.

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.)

kofh2u writes: Because the fused chromosome is unique to humans and is fixed, the fusion must have occurred after the human–chimpanzee split, but before modern humans spread around the world, that is, between 6 million and ~1 million years ago (Mya; Chen and Li 2001; Yu et al. 2001) (Fig.5). This suggests that if CHAD was the first in our line of ascent, it was he that experienced that FUSION of two chromosomes we all, in this line of 22 species, MUST have ever since had.

Wiki writes: Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct hominid species that is dated to about 7 million years ago, very close to the time of the chimpanzee/human divergence, and so it is unclear whether it can be regarded as a member of the Hominini tribe.

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:

---

[Chad] is approximately a million years older than the next oldest known hominid, dating to approximately seven million years in age. ...

Without more evidence — for example, femur and pelvic bones, or a complete and undistorted skull — the issue of S. tachadensis‘s mode of locomotion [and hence placement with relation to the human-chimpanzee split] is unlikely to be resolved satisfactorily.

http://www.public.wsu.edu/...r/timeline/04_s_tchadensis.html

---

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?

These next 22 species of this Ape-man developed from the chemical dust of this earth into Modern homo sapiens thru the 22 genealogical series of names...

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