Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

I think it needs to be recognized that there are degrees of fossilization. If a sample is completely replaced with silicon, then all that exists is stone in the form of a once living creature. It happens that sometimes not all of a bone has been converted. Portions of the original chemistry remain. When that happens a sample can be ground up and DNA extracted. Until fairly recently, the methods to replicate DNA have been subject to the problem of contamination by bacteria etc. This gives a fairly non technical explanation of the problems and the techniques involved.

Since the machinery and techniques exist to reconstruct the DNA it is now possible to compare it to any organism one chooses.

 

[Seekermeister]

If fossil DNA can be contaminated by bacteria, what about time and environment?

 

[HombrePequeno]

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.

It's clear you are the lazy one. A few of the sites claim things that I've already refuted (Neanderthal having arthritis and rickets). Quite a few of the other ones refer to Piltdown Man (not Neanderthal) which was a hoax. Some other ones refer to the linked to in your initial link. The rest of them had no actual relevance to Neanderthal being a hoax and just had the two words in the article linked (probably referring to Piltdown Man again).

That was just the first few pages but after a few pages on search engines, links tend to get less and less relevant. So almost all of those "123,000 links" have nothing to do with what you are saying. Now maybe you should stop being lazy and give some bloody evidence of your claims for once.

 

[Seekermeister]

To this point, I have not read anything on this thread that would make it appear to be worthwhile to go to any trouble documenting anything, because no one has done anything except to speak their own opinions. So long as it remains so, then I shall simply do the same.

If this discussion was a rational and objective discussion, then I would put more effort into it.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
blackllotus

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

I haven't actually expressed my opinon about Neanderthals, except that I believe they existed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
If fossil DNA can be contaminated by bacteria, what about time and environment?

In itself time doesn't mean anything. What does matter is the exposure of material to environment OVER time. DNA does decompose because it is exposed to oxygen and oxidizing substances. As a result it does break down, but the result is that the DNA pretty much falls apart. It would not rearrange into another kind of DNA, because thermodynamically it doesn't work. Perhaps a clearer example would be a house made of brick. As long as people(think of them as enzymes which maintain the DNA in living things) keep making repairs, the home stands. If it is abandoned and no one keeps it up, it begins to deterioriate. It weathers into the ground over a long time. What you would not expect to see is the fallen bricks reconstruct themselves from a Colonial to a Victorian. It just doesn't happen. Now what the technique used for the DNA in question is in essence take the fallen walls and fit the pieces back together like a jigsaw. It's an oversimplification granted, but valid in essense.

 

[Seekermeister]

blackllotus,

I do not dispute the fact that some fossils have been found, which were given the name neanderthal. So, I'm not disputing their existence either. So what is the issue? Obviously, it is about who and what the neanderthal were, and how they relate to modern humans. So, let's not argue about the obvious, because there is plenty more to discuss than that.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
blackllotus,

I do not dispute the fact that some fossils have been found, which were given the name neanderthal. So, I'm not disputing their existence either. So what is the issue? Obviously, it is about who and what the neanderthal were, and how they relate to modern humans. So, let's not argue about the obvious, because there is plenty more to discuss than that.

So you say they exist, yet say they're a hoax? You make no sense.

 

[Seekermeister]

I have not said anything about DNA reconstructing itself. Since you agree that DNA decomposes over time, given the right circumstances, why would you eliminate that in this case? Since these "bones" were only partially fossilized, why would it be assumed that the nonfossilized portion was uneffected by the process. I do not believe that a bone turns into fossil instantly, therefore the unfossilized portions would be undergoing the process also, just in a different time phase. If they actually could retreive true and complete DNA from these fossils, then we would also be seeing a version of Jurassic Park, which is not at the theater or TV.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I have not said anything about DNA reconstructing itself. Since you agree that DNA decomposes over time, given the right circumstances, why would you eliminate that in this case? Since these "bones" were only partially fossilized, why would it be assumed that the nonfossilized portion was uneffected by the process. I do not believe that a bone turns into fossil instantly, therefore the unfossilized portions would be undergoing the process also, just in a different time phase. If they actually could retreive true and complete DNA from these fossils, then we would also be seeing a version of Jurassic Park, which is not at the theater or TV.

It's chemistry. DNA is a chain. The chain breaks into smaller portions. The links do not rearrange.

 

[Seekermeister]

You are repeating yourself, not answering my questions. I will repeat, I said nothing about anything rearranging itself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Then I don't understand the question. DNA fragments into smaller pieces over time. DNA fits together in specific patterns and can be put back together reliably. If you do so you have sequenced the genome. Genes are sequenced every day. PCR has been around for years. The newer techniques piece DNA back together and the technique is proven. It all means you have the material, you process it and you have something you can examine and test. I thought perhaps you didn't understand how things work and was trying to explain it.

 

[Seekermeister]

Also, I found that the DNA analysis involved only 3.3 million pairs by one team, and 65,000 by another. This is a very small amount, compared with the 3 billion pairs in humans. Therefore, at best, the actual percentage of identical pairs could only be estimated statistically. I have yet to find anything about the exact method of comparison used.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Therefore, at best, the actual percentage of identical pairs could only be estimated statistically. I have yet to find anything about the exact method of comparison used.

It is exceedingly unlikely that the percentage is wrong to any significant degree.

 

[Seekermeister]

Hayabusa Rider,

However small a DNA molecule is, it is composed of distinct parts. What is to say that the entire molecule decomposes instantly with all of it component parts? Why should I or anyone else, not believe that individual components couldn't be effected, while others aren't. This is not rearranging the components, it is merely accounting for them individually, instead of in mass.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Therefore, at best, the actual percentage of identical pairs could only be estimated statistically. I have yet to find anything about the exact method of comparison used.

It is exceedingly unlikely that the percentage is wrong to any significant degree.

How much is a significant degree? Would a one half of one percent be significant?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
1. 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. What complexity? / 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.

1. And notice that I never said anything about C14 dating? Its only one of many different radiometric techniques, and depending on the element on which it depends, the dating periods can be very old indeed, and the errors you speak of are clearly calculated and stated in advance. For example Uranium-lead dating is used from 1m to 4.5B years, with an error of 0.1-1%.

While we're on this topic, why don't you tell me how old the world is?


2. Choose your flavour - explain the variety of species we see, explain the eye, explain civilization, explain the mind and intelligence. These things are all interrelated facets of an abstract order and complexity that you see everywhere in the world. With enough reading and curiosity, one can start to get a glimpse of the answer science provides - stronger in some places and weaker in others.

On the other hand, the only thing religion can do is postulate and obfuscate - but never explain.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Seekermeister

I referred to you as ignorant mostly because of your first post claiming Neanderthal is a hoax.

While calling you stupid might have been a little harsh, I think only by a little bit.

Your earlier thread about logic contained not a bit of logic to support any of your conclusions.

In this thread, you use various suppositions as premises without establishing them as true, so you cannot claim any conclusions from them are true either, even though you argue that they are.

There is a great preponderance of evidence to show that Neanderthals did exist and that they are a divergent group different from modern humans. Your cry of "hoax" and the link you supplied did nothing to support your original statement.

If you have any real evidence that supports your position, or a train of logic we could follow from whatever facts you think you have, you should present them if you want to be taken with any seriousness.

So far, all you seem to do is dismiss other evidence and present none to support your own position.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin.

Obviously, this paste is from a Christian website:

Uranium-Lead Dating:
This dating method is used primarily on igneous rocks and is used to date objects thought to be quite old. Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means that if we could watch a sample of U-238 for 4.5 billion years, we would note that half of it would be gone, having decayed to Lead [Pb]-206.
U-Pb dating is based upon three assumptions:
1) A constant decay rate--this is a reasonable assumption based upon observed physical properties.
2) No loss or gain of Uranium or Lead during the "life" of the rock.--To avoid this problem, paleontologists choose specimes that appear to have no erosion forces acting on it. This is difficult to objectively guarantee, but it is nonetheless a reasonable assumption.
3) It is assumed that NO Lead was in the specimen when it was formed. This assumption is illogical, and is actually the entire basis for U-Pb dating. Why wouldn't there be Lead in the specimen when it was formed? Why would there be Uranium and no Lead? How do we know that there was no Lead in the specimen when it was formed?

How it works:
U-Pb dating is calculated after an igneous rock is analyzed for its content of U-238 and Pb-206. Since it is assumed that no Lead was in the specimen when it came into existence, then any Pb-206 found would apparently be from decayed U-238. If there are found to be equal amounts of U-238 and Pb-206, then half of the U-238 has decayed, and the specimen would be 4.5 billion years old.
In reality:
Any ratio of U-238 and Pb-206 would be due to random mixing of elements that were created in the beginning. Since our world is approximately 6,000 years old [see Geochronometers], only a fraction of Pb-206 would be attributed to U-238 decay.

But, instead of complaining about the source of the information, how about commenting on the subtance of the information contained?

 

[Seekermeister]

Clicked the wrong button.

 

[Seekermeister]

jackschmittusa,

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out exactly where I used suppositions? The best that I can remember, I have asked far more questions, than I have made statements...supposed or otherwise. Your complaint that I haven't answered everybody's questions is due to the fact that few have asked any questions that were relevant, they, like yourself, have preferred to make simple assertions based on your own "suppositions" about the validity of certain areas of science.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin.

Obviously, this paste is from a Christian website:

Uranium-Lead Dating:
This dating method is used primarily on igneous rocks and is used to date objects thought to be quite old. Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means that if we could watch a sample of U-238 for 4.5 billion years, we would note that half of it would be gone, having decayed to Lead [Pb]-206.
U-Pb dating is based upon three assumptions:
1) A constant decay rate--this is a reasonable assumption based upon observed physical properties.
2) No loss or gain of Uranium or Lead during the "life" of the rock.--To avoid this problem, paleontologists choose specimes that appear to have no erosion forces acting on it. This is difficult to objectively guarantee, but it is nonetheless a reasonable assumption.
3) It is assumed that NO Lead was in the specimen when it was formed. This assumption is illogical, and is actually the entire basis for U-Pb dating. Why wouldn't there be Lead in the specimen when it was formed? Why would there be Uranium and no Lead? How do we know that there was no Lead in the specimen when it was formed?

How it works:
U-Pb dating is calculated after an igneous rock is analyzed for its content of U-238 and Pb-206. Since it is assumed that no Lead was in the specimen when it came into existence, then any Pb-206 found would apparently be from decayed U-238. If there are found to be equal amounts of U-238 and Pb-206, then half of the U-238 has decayed, and the specimen would be 4.5 billion years old.
In reality:
Any ratio of U-238 and Pb-206 would be due to random mixing of elements that were created in the beginning. Since our world is approximately 6,000 years old [see Geochronometers], only a fraction of Pb-206 would be attributed to U-238 decay.

But, instead of complaining about the source of the information, how about commenting on the subtance of the information contained?

You see, this is where credibility comes in. I've certainly taken more than enough math and science to be able learn the intricacies of radiometric dating, but today's world contains entirely too much information for a single person to know all of it, so people have to specialize.

Now, you left out your source, because you knew just how pertient to the discussion it would become, but hiding links when Google is there is pretty useless. So one one hand we have a tremendous body of peer-reviewed work refined over decades, and on the other we have your source, which claims the world is 6180 years old.

So we both know that neither of us knows the intricacies of radiomentric dating, the difference being is that I trust scientists and you trust bible literalists, because you believe in a vast global scientific conspiracy spanning many decades.

You didn't answer my other two questions, though. How old is the world according to you, and the whole theory explaining the world...

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Hayabusa Rider,

However small a DNA molecule is, it is composed of distinct parts. What is to say that the entire molecule decomposes instantly with all of it component parts?

We know a little about DNA chemistry.

Why should I or anyone else, not believe that individual components couldn't be effected, while others aren't. This is not rearranging the components, it is merely accounting for them individually, instead of in mass.

If the DNA were decomposed as you claim, they would not be getting any sequence data at all. There is more than one genome equivalent in the samples they study, only one of them need be intact in one particular sport for the analysis to work in that one particular spot.

Google PCR and DNA forensics.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin.

Obviously, this paste is from a Christian website:

Uranium-Lead Dating:
This dating method is used primarily on igneous rocks and is used to date objects thought to be quite old. Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means that if we could watch a sample of U-238 for 4.5 billion years, we would note that half of it would be gone, having decayed to Lead [Pb]-206.
U-Pb dating is based upon three assumptions:
1) A constant decay rate--this is a reasonable assumption based upon observed physical properties.
2) No loss or gain of Uranium or Lead during the "life" of the rock.--To avoid this problem, paleontologists choose specimes that appear to have no erosion forces acting on it. This is difficult to objectively guarantee, but it is nonetheless a reasonable assumption.
3) It is assumed that NO Lead was in the specimen when it was formed. This assumption is illogical, and is actually the entire basis for U-Pb dating. Why wouldn't there be Lead in the specimen when it was formed? Why would there be Uranium and no Lead? How do we know that there was no Lead in the specimen when it was formed?

How it works:
U-Pb dating is calculated after an igneous rock is analyzed for its content of U-238 and Pb-206. Since it is assumed that no Lead was in the specimen when it came into existence, then any Pb-206 found would apparently be from decayed U-238. If there are found to be equal amounts of U-238 and Pb-206, then half of the U-238 has decayed, and the specimen would be 4.5 billion years old.
In reality:
Any ratio of U-238 and Pb-206 would be due to random mixing of elements that were created in the beginning. Since our world is approximately 6,000 years old [see Geochronometers], only a fraction of Pb-206 would be attributed to U-238 decay.

But, instead of complaining about the source of the information, how about commenting on the subtance of the information contained?

I will answer with another quote (from Wikipedia):

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.

Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. These can be dated by a SHRIMP ion microprobe. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via ion microprobe (SIMS) or laser ICP-MS.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.

 

[BDawg]

Wow... just wow. After reading the first few of Seekermeister's posts, I don't believe our founding fathers knew what they were getting when they gave all Americans the right to vote.

I heard rumors that this kind of ignorance still existed, but there's never been such a pornographic display like Seekermeister's here.