Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

That might be true if you IGNORE over 30 years of molecular biology which also overwhelmingly supports human/ape common ancestry...you seem to be pretty good at maintaining your ignorance of entire disciplines of science...way to go

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

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.

Robert, if you care to open this topic in the Boot Camp, here is my opening salvo...

quote:

---

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

---

Happened in both cases? Because the neandertals (plural as several have been sequenced) do not have sequences anything like europeans this makes them Germans? Hey, the Germans are a bit strange but neandertals they ain't. Their genetic diversity places them quite comfortably within the range of european genetic diversity.6,000 years is not enough and this is not only inferred from evolutionary studies but from biochemistry (a field you claim is actual science). The mutation rates for all polymerases have been measured. To generate the difference between neandertals and humans in 6,000 years is not biochemically feasible. It gets worse when you compare other organisms where even more distance separates them.

quote:

---

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

---

Could you please point me to the verse in the bible which deals with morphological and genetic differences between neandertals and humans? It seems to be missing from my copy...mine just has the cud chewing rabbits.

quote:

---

OR
DNA is not reliable as it is now used in Toe to draw conclusions about ancestry as is always brought up to me.

---

You bring it up but you have yet to support it with any evidence. Your thesis is that since science is inconsistent with the bible, the science must be wrong. However, science can marshal evidence to support its conclusions. You have thus far only marshalled A) your lack of knowledge of science 2)and your personal incredulity. On what basis would anyone accept your evidence free view? Can you answer that?

Hey Q,
I'm trying to get the topic re-started in the Boot Camp. Now that salty J A Davison finally shut up, a productive debate may be possible with Robert there...at least until salty starts posting again