Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

You are correct that I'm not interested in any links of this kind, because I have read plenty of them before. You are also correct that I do not believe in any fossil dating techniques, because they are based on theories without any substance. As far as genetics, exactly what do you believe that this proves?

Let me break you claims down into chunks:
1. You don't believe that radioactive elements decay (or think that the rate of decay is indeterminate)
2. You can explain complexity without resorting to evolution.
3. You don't think that having 2 DNA sequences and knowing their rates of mutation can be used to determine a common ancestor (or you believe in a common ancestor).

So please, give me your version of the story. Why are phycists lying to us? Where did neanderthals (and for that matter, homo erectus and all previous human fossils) come from? And how do you explain complexity in the world?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
HombrePequeno,

You might as well get used to being annoyed then, because nothing that you or anyone else has said proves anything. The reference to the "entire population" is without meaning, because they did find "neanderthals" with erect posture, which is the actual subject at hand. Nothing proves that the neanderthals were subhuman ancesters of man.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Yes, Neanderthals had an erect posture contrary to historical representation of them (unscientific representation). That doesn't mean it's the same species as Homo sapiens, however. There are quite a few differences between ancient Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. Whether these differences amounted to Neanderthals being a separate species as opposed to a subspecies is still up for debate.

My contention with your post is quoting an article that points to Dr. Virchow's opinions as fact. That's complete BS. Rickets is easily detectable, as is arthritis, in the remains of Neanderthals and none have them have been found to suffer from rickets or arthritis. Dr. Virchow wasn't commenting on the species as a whole either; he was commenting on the first known Neanderthal fossils back in 1872. That's not exactly cutting edge science right there if you're relying on someone who back in 1872 had very limited amounts of fossils to base his theory on.

Edit: Here's a site that has more info on the subject.

 

[Seekermeister]

HombrePequeno,

The core of this subject is whether neanderthals were predecessors to modern man within the scope of the theory of evolution. Therefore, it would first need to be shown that the neanderthals were related to humans, and that they did constitute a stage of evolution. The differences actually found do neither of these. For instance, the cranial shape is not unlike all modern men, I have seen many people alive today, with heads shaped similarly. And since evolution implies a progression in intelligence with time, that is contrary to the size of the neanderthal skulls vs modern man also, because they had larger brains. If we assume that these are humanoid, what would that prove? The theory of evolution has man evolving from monkeys and apes, but even if the neanderthals were real, they do not provide a link to man.

 

[f95toli]

What in the world are you getting at?

Neanderthals were NOT predecessors to modern man (Homo Sapiens), AFAIK that has been known for a very long time. They belonged to a different branch of the family tree, i.e. they were our "close cousins" ). We had a common ancestor about 500 000 years ago but after that we went our separate ways (as a comparison: Chimps split of from the tree about 5 milion years ago), and for several hundred thousand years we more or less co-existed. Modern Homo Sapien probably evolved in a warmer climate (Africa) whereas the Neanthertals lived further north where it was colder (they were better adapted to the cold climate). They seemed to have survived in Europe until about 35 000 years ago when they went extinct, possibly because our ancestors immigrated to Europe from Africa and simply killed off the competition.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

You are correct that I'm not interested in any links of this kind, because I have read plenty of them before. You are also correct that I do not believe in any fossil dating techniques, because they are based on theories without any substance. As far as genetics, exactly what do you believe that this proves?

Let me break you claims down into chunks:
1. You don't believe that radioactive elements decay (or think that the rate of decay is indeterminate)

I never said a word about whether radioactive elements decay, nor did I say that the rate of decay can be calculated. However, Carbon14 dating, which is the primary means of dating organic matter, is only capable of calculating to a maximum of 50,000 years. Beyond that, it is totally useless. Even within this range of time, it has known and significant vagaries, so that any dating done with it must be taken with a grain of salt. Throw in the human bias factor, and even that grain loses any flavor.

2. You can explain complexity without resorting to evolution.

What complexity?

3. You don't think that having 2 DNA sequences and knowing their rates of mutation can be used to determine a common ancestor (or you believe in a common ancestor).

Firstly, explain to me how they obtained viable DNA from a 38,000 year old fossil? Fossils are merely a representation of the original bones composed of minerals. Even if by some miracle some of the original DNA remained, is it not logical to assume that it would have undergone some changes due to environment and time? Since DNA can only be tested against relatively modern bones or tissues, by what means are any theories regarding it's applicability to fossils determined?

So please, give me your version of the story. Why are phycists lying to us? Where did neanderthals (and for that matter, homo erectus and all previous human fossils) come from? And how do you explain complexity in the world?

Again, what complexity? The only complexity that I can see, is that which science has produced to attempt to patch the multitude of their failed theories.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
HombrePequeno,

The core of this subject is whether neanderthals were predecessors to modern man within the scope of the theory of evolution. Therefore, it would first need to be shown that the neanderthals were related to humans, and that they did constitute a stage of evolution. The differences actually found do neither of these. For instance, the cranial shape is not unlike all modern men, I have seen many people alive today, with heads shaped similarly. And since evolution implies a progression in intelligence with time, that is contrary to the size of the neanderthal skulls vs modern man also, because they had larger brains. If we assume that these are humanoid, what would that prove? The theory of evolution has man evolving from monkeys and apes, but even if the neanderthals were real, they do not provide a link to man.

Who says Neanderthals are predecessors? Neanderthals came about after the evolution of Homo sapiens. If you're trying to disprove Neanderthals as our predecessors, don't waste your time because I don't know anyone that believes it anyway. Our predecessors were Homo erectus. If you want to try to disprove them as our predecessors, be my guest. Have a fun time and I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh at your attempts.

That being said, it would be best if you didn't quote articles that rely on one man's opinions over 100 years ago. That does nothing to help your credibility.

 

[Seekermeister]

f95toli,

First off, explain where the range of ages comes from...500,000 to 35,000? We have not found that many neanderthal fossils. Secondly, how do you determine whether neanderthals were inline or branched relatives of humans?

 

[Seekermeister]

HombrePequeno,

My credibility is not an issue for me. Whether you believe or disbelieve me is your choice. All that I can do is to offer you information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Since you find it so simple to say that I am ignorant and stupid, it should be easy for you to prove your own intelligence by picking up the gauntlet that I threw down to Martin.

We aren't here to explain the entire damn theory of evolution to you. Thats something you can learn on your own. It is a well established theory so you are going to have to provide some evidence of your own to disprove it. This will be extremely difficult since evolution is an observable phenomenon.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
All that I can do is to offer you information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

What information? All you have presented are claims with no supporting evidence. Thats not information.

 

[Seekermeister]

blackllotus,

In other words, you have nothing relevant to say. I never asked for an explaination of the theory of evolution for my benefit. I simply wanted to see if any of you understand it yourselves? Considering the manner in which you defend it, you must have something more than a simple faith in science to maintain your rigid, blind stance. It's reminescent of the blind faith that Christians are accused of.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
HombrePequeno,

My credibility is not an issue for me. Whether you believe or disbelieve me is your choice. All that I can do is to offer you information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

Well here's a tip when you provide information: People will take it more seriously when it's from a credible source.

Coming in here and claiming Neanderthal is a myth and pointing to one instance of a hoax as evidence makes people take what you say less seriously. Afterwards quoting an article that is horribly false that came from a very biased website doesn't help your case either. If you want people to take you seriously, put up some credible links and not the same creationist BS that everyone has heard a million times before and disproved a million times before.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Neanderthals is a hoax.

GEICO says that there are and Warren E. Buffet is always correct.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
My credibility is not an issue for me.

That's probably the first true thing you've ever said on here.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
HombrePequeno,

My credibility is not an issue for me. Whether you believe or disbelieve me is your choice. All that I can do is to offer you information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

Well here's a tip when you provide information: People will take it more seriously when it's from a credible source.

Coming in here and claiming Neanderthal is a myth and pointing to one instance of a hoax as evidence makes people take what you say less seriously. Afterwards quoting an article that is horribly false that came from a very biased website doesn't help your case either. If you want people to take you seriously, put up some credible links and not the same creationist BS that everyone has heard a million times before and disproved a million times before.

I pointed you to 123,000 links. If you are too lazy to look, then that is your problem, not mine.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
HombrePequeno,

My credibility is not an issue for me. Whether you believe or disbelieve me is your choice. All that I can do is to offer you information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it.

Well here's a tip when you provide information: People will take it more seriously when it's from a credible source.

Coming in here and claiming Neanderthal is a myth and pointing to one instance of a hoax as evidence makes people take what you say less seriously. Afterwards quoting an article that is horribly false that came from a very biased website doesn't help your case either. If you want people to take you seriously, put up some credible links and not the same creationist BS that everyone has heard a million times before and disproved a million times before.

I pointed you to 123,000 links. If you are too lazy to look, then that is your problem, not mine.

No you didn't.

You didn't point to anything credible.

Why do you hate God so much???

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No you didn't.

You didn't point to anything credible.

Why do you hate God so much???

If you are incapable of understanding what I have said about the links, then you certainly are incapable of understanding what my love of God is, much less love in general.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I simply wanted to see if any of you understand it yourselves?

Ignoring the fact that you clearly need to learn what it is, your question is still way to vague. What do you think we don't understand? Microevolution? How microevolution leads to macroevolution? Is it possible to progress from a prokaryote to a human? What did we evolve from? Honestly, most people here understand the fundamentals of evolution. Hell, even most high school students understand the fundamentals of evolution.

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Considering the manner in which you defend it, you must have something more than a simple faith in science to maintain your rigid, blind stance.

Your right, I have more than "simple faith". I have an enormous amount of facts.

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
It's reminescent of the blind faith that Christians are accused of.

Not at all. Christians are not accused of blind faith. Certain[/b] Christians are accused of blind faith by other Christians. Most scientists are Christians and the vast majority of scientists believe in evolutionary theory. You can babble on all you want about how they are not "real" Christians, however the simple truth is that they are. You just choose to deny it because they don't share the exact same belief structure as you.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I pointed you to 123,000 links. If you are too lazy to look, then that is your problem, not mine.

I get 3.4 million links when I search for 9/11 conspiracies. That must mean 9/11 was a hoax.

 

[Seekermeister]

You only get 1,200,000 if you search 9/11 hoax. Obviously, it requires a measure of common sense to be able to evaluate the worth of any such articles. I have read/watched alot of stories about 9/11 hoax, but I have not read any that have any credibility. How many articles about neanderthal hoaxes have you read? Exactly what do you base your judgement on...whatever science tell you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Two points-
First, the fact that there is this level of homology between Neandrathal and Homo Sapiens is not suprising, and proves nothing at all. The vast majority of genes is used for "housekeeping" in a relatively fixed environment. Electron transport systems etc require a certain blueprint for example to become reality. All this proves is that one good scheme is worth repeating no matter how you think things came about. As such, this proves nothing regarding Creationism. It is what it is and attributing some philsophical quality to this homology is specious.

Second- That DNA can survive 38k years is not suprising. One has to be lucky to find it, but it's no miracle. DNA doesn't "evolve" in dead cells. It can't rearrange as the enzymes needed to manipulate it require very specific conditions. It can degrade, but that is a straightforward process of oxidation, and there is of course no mechanism to repair or transform DNA in a dead cell. The OP would be hard pressed to present evidence otherwise.

Also, it sounds as if there is some huge conspiracy going on. That's hardly credible.

 

[Seekermeister]

Hayabusa,

This discussion has nothing to do with proving creationism, it is only about a person using some personal judgement about the merits of evolution, and anything relating to it. For the moment, forget about creationism, because it has no relationship to evolution.

I can accept the notion of extracting DNA from mummies, because they are not fossilized, but explain just how this is done with fossils?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
How many articles about neanderthal hoaxes have you read?

The only one I have read is the one you linked, but surely you can understand why I am hesitant to look into the idea that every single discovery about Neanderthals is a hoax.

 

[Seekermeister]

blackllotus

But, you aren't hesitant to express your opinion about them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Hayabusa,

This discussion has nothing to do with proving creationism, it is only about a person using some personal judgement about the merits of evolution, and anything relating to it. For the moment, forget about creationism, because it has no relationship to evolution.

I can accept the notion of extracting DNA from mummies, because they are not fossilized, but explain just how this is done with fossils?

Link