"I can create a Neanderthal baby"

[zinfamous]

Sweet!

KT

That is Homo sapien, sapien, sir.

 

[phucheneh]

This sounds like a Nazi concentration camp experiment.

Ok, well, the weirdness is there. But not the sheer retarded barbarism. 'Hey, I wonder if I can split a Jew in half without him dying?!? SCIENCE!'

 

[zinfamous]

This sounds like a Nazi concentration camp experiment.

Ok, well, the weirdness is there. But not the sheer retarded barbarism. 'Hey, I wonder if I can split a Jew in half without him dying?!? SCIENCE!'

well, it would sound like that (actually it wouldn't), if that is what the professor actually said...

 

[techs]

I have to wonder if they would stronger than Homo Sapiens. I can see Belichek already thinking about how to restock the offensive line.

 

[KeithTalent]

That is Homo sapien, sapien, sir.

But he was thawed from ice and accordingly became the coolest guy in town!

KT

 

[amish]

I was really rooting for the Neaderthals, their poetry was beautiful.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Neanderthals didn't really go extinct. They merged with modern day humans genetically. Europeans have the most Neanderthal DNA in them.

False.

 

[zinfamous]

I have to wonder if they would stronger than Homo Sapiens. I can see Belichek already thinking about how to restock the offensive line.

thicker bones, greater muscle mass--they certainly were. also significantly shorter. They lost out because the race of manlets can not survive. (summoning my inner schneiderguy, there)

 

[Gigantopithecus]

False.

According to whom?

 

[SunnyD]

But he was thawed from ice and accordingly became the coolest guy in town!

KT

Wasn't he the coolest guy BEFORE he was thawed? :hmm:

 

[phucheneh]

well, it would sound like that (actually it wouldn't), if that is what the professor actually said...

Reading: not a strength of yours. Try again. 'Not' can be a key word.

 

[clamum]

Reading: not a strength of yours. Try again. 'Not' can be a key word.

AKA: "wat"

 

[KeithTalent]

Wasn't he the coolest guy BEFORE he was thawed? :hmm:

Both!

KT

 

[SphinxnihpS]

According to whom?

Sciencers.

 

[zinfamous]

Reading: not a strength of yours. Try again. 'Not' can be a key word.

not sure if you're just referring to what is presented in the article, or the reality of what the researcher actually said.

I suggest you look at the rebuttal.

also, this has nothing to do with cutting people in half to see what would happen, or weird nazi experiments.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Sciencers.

Not according to the chapter I wrote that will be in this book.

 

[phucheneh]

not sure if you're just referring to what is presented in the article, or the reality of what the researcher actually said.

I suggest you look at the rebuttal.

also, this has nothing to do with cutting people in half to see what would happen, or weird nazi experiments.

Jesus. You should really stay away from the internet if you can't grasp concepts like sarcasm and hyperbole. Or read and comprehend things written in English.

I'm so sorry that my brief post was too complex for you. Allow me to rephrase.

DAT SHIT BE ODD, YO.

 

[zinfamous]

Jesus. You should really stay away from the internet if you can't grasp concepts like sarcasm and hyperbole. Or read and comprehend things written in English.

I'm so sorry that my brief post was too complex for you. Allow me to rephrase.

DAT SHIT BE ODD, YO.

shit....


what the hell were my Biology and English degrees for, then?

 

[zinfamous]

Not according to the chapter I wrote that will be in this book.

Biology RECONSIDERED?



that sounds like revisionist sciencing, sir!

:sneaky:

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Not according to the chapter I wrote that will be in this book.

I am not responsible for your research, but here is the link. Perhaps you even have a subscription.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Jesus. You should really stay away from the internet if you can't grasp concepts like sarcasm and hyperbole. Or read and comprehend things written in English.

I'm so sorry that my brief post was too complex for you. Allow me to rephrase.

DAT SHIT BE ODD, YO.

Odie Eyorning.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Biology RECONSIDERED?



that sounds like revisionist sciencing, sir!

:sneaky:

LOL. It's an 'update' to a volume that was published years ago. Theories and ideas have changed in light of new data, like the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome. Scientists are pretty notorious for revisioning...it's kinda integral to doing science!

I am not responsible for your research, but here is the link. Perhaps you even have a subscription.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956

Sure, that paper gained some traction in the media when it was published. The main issue is that it was obsolete before it was even published. That is, from the time the work was done to the time it was published, newer data and analyses had already undermined/disproven its claim that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals did not interbreed.

Succinctly, their model hinges on genetic heterogeneity of alleles shared with Neanderthals in Africans being higher than it is in Europeans and Asians. In other words, where living people share genes with Neanderthals, Africans should show more variation in how those genes are shared with Neanderthals than how Europeans or Asians share genes with Neanderthals. That is simply not the case. So their model predicts facts that are not observed in the data.

Further, work done in my adviser's lab clearly illustrates that the Tyrolean Ice Man (Otzi) shared many more alleles with Neanderthals than living Europeans do. This is inexplicable by any model that does not involve interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

That paper has been cited less than a dozen times since its publication - mostly because it was out of date before it was published. And the few papers that do cite it, do so to explain why it's wrong.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

LOL. It's an 'update' to a volume that was published years ago. Theories and ideas have changed in light of new data, like the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome. Scientists are pretty notorious for revisioning...it's kinda integral to doing science!



Sure, that paper gained some traction in the media when it was published. The main issue is that it was obsolete before it was even published. That is, from the time the work was done to the time it was published, newer data and analyses had already undermined/disproven its claim that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals did not interbreed.

Succinctly, their model hinges on genetic heterogeneity of alleles shared with Neanderthals in Africans being higher than it is in Europeans and Asians. In other words, where living people share genes with Neanderthals, Africans should show more variation in how those genes are shared with Neanderthals than how Europeans or Asians share genes with Neanderthals. That is simply not the case. So their model predicts facts that are not observed in the data.

Further, work done in my adviser's lab clearly illustrates that the Tyrolean Ice Man (Otzi) shared many more alleles with Neanderthals than living Europeans do. This is inexplicable by any model that does not involve interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

That paper has been cited less than a dozen times since its publication - mostly because it was out of date before it was published. And the few papers that do cite it, do so to explain why it's wrong.

Thanks for the insider knowledge. I'm just a guy trying to do his best with what old information floats by (in mainstream publications) as new, and it seems like with science, everything new is old.

That being said, do you think that Neanderthals were interbred out of existence (i.e. we are all Homo Sapien Sapienthal), because that is what bignate was implying?

 

[jagec]

Jesus. You should really stay away from the internet if you can't grasp concepts like sarcasm and hyperbole. Or read and comprehend things written in English.

I'm so sorry that my brief post was too complex for you. Allow me to rephrase.

DAT SHIT BE ODD, YO.

Sorry, you brought up the Nazis first, so that means that you lose by the standard rules of the internet.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Thanks for the insider knowledge. I'm just a guy trying to do his best with what old information floats by (in mainstream publications) as new, and it seems like with science, everything new is old.

That being said, do you think that Neanderthals were interbred out of existence (i.e. we are all Homo Sapien Sapienthal), because that is what bignate was implying?

The problem is that mainstream media outlets try to sensationalize every new paper, when not every new paper is sensational. Most science is what we call "normal science" - incremental contributions that are small steps forward. Most science does not really warrant much mainstream coverage. The particular paper you referenced was especially hyped up, and hyped up prematurely (there was press coverage before the paper was available for peer review - PNAS papers do not always get subjected to pre-publication peer review). That was because it said something different/contrary to what most scientists were saying.

Yes, I think Neanderthals no longer exist because they were incorporated into the modern human gene pool. This really should not be surprising, as it has happened in recorded history to other groups of people. For example, Tasmanian aborigines went 'extinct' in the last few hundred years, but Australian aborigines still carry some of their characteristic genetic variants.