Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[Seekermeister]

Why didn't you comment about the specific information in my post? I already said that it was from a Christian website, so it is obvious that it is not directly from a scientific source. Do you dispute the concept that igneous rock, which comes from volcanic eruptions, would already contain lead? Does this mean that the molten interior doesn't contain any lead? If that is what you are assuming, then I would really like to have some kind of verification.

As far as your other two questions, I didn't answer them because the answers wouldn't mean much to you. First, I do not give the Earth an exact age, because the Bible does not do so. I have no problem with the idea that the Earth is older than the 6,000 years that some interpret the Bible to say, but that does not mean that I believe in the scientific figures either. If you expect me to be more precise, then you shall be disappointed.

To you second question...I have no theories about the creation of the world, beyond those which the Bible describes, but I do not consider them theories. Any apparent conflict between science and the Bible is due to a lack of knowledge in science, and a misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not going to repeat my explaination of the Genesis account of creation, because if once is not enough, twice won't do any better.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Why didn't you comment about the specific information in my post? I already said that it was from a Christian website, so it is obvious that it is not directly from a scientific source. Do you dispute the concept that igneous rock, which comes from volcanic eruptions, would already contain lead? Does this mean that the molten interior doesn't contain any lead? If that is what you are assuming, then I would really like to have some kind of verification.

See my post on the previous page.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: 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.

I didn't ask about what Wikipedia said, I asked for comments pertaining directly to my post. Are you capable of giving a reasonable response?

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: 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.

Don't worry, I wouldn't deprive you of your right to vote, regardless of how qualified that I believe that you are.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I didn't ask about what Wikipedia said, I asked for comments pertaining directly to my post. Are you capable of giving a reasonable response?

The information in the quote I provided explains why U-238 dating is a valid technique. Isn't that what you wanted?

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Why didn't you comment about the specific information in my post? I already said that it was from a Christian website, so it is obvious that it is not directly from a scientific source. Do you dispute the concept that igneous rock, which comes from volcanic eruptions, would already contain lead? Does this mean that the molten interior doesn't contain any lead? If that is what you are assuming, then I would really like to have some kind of verification.

See my post on the previous page.

No. I shall not go hunting for anyone in a previous post, because how ever many pages that may be, is determined by a person display settings for this forum.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why is it so difficult to understand? The fact that there are some bones that are called neanderthal proves nothing outside the fact that they are the remains of some ancient people. It proves nothing about who they were, or what their relationship to us is. The hoax is about how these are being framed into the picture of life on this Earth...not whether they were fabricated. If you can't understand this, then I'm wasting my time explaining further.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd go further in fact. I'd say 99.5% of humans are indistinguishable from Neanderthals.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: Enig101

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Why didn't you comment about the specific information in my post? I already said that it was from a Christian website, so it is obvious that it is not directly from a scientific source. Do you dispute the concept that igneous rock, which comes from volcanic eruptions, would already contain lead? Does this mean that the molten interior doesn't contain any lead? If that is what you are assuming, then I would really like to have some kind of verification.

See my post on the previous page.

No. I shall not go hunting for anyone in a previous post, because how ever many pages that may be, is determined by a person display settings for this forum.

Nevermind that, you already quoted it (my Wikipedia reference). I only referred to it as it was very recent.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Why didn't you comment about the specific information in my post? I already said that it was from a Christian website, so it is obvious that it is not directly from a scientific source. Do you dispute the concept that igneous rock, which comes from volcanic eruptions, would already contain lead? Does this mean that the molten interior doesn't contain any lead? If that is what you are assuming, then I would really like to have some kind of verification.

As far as your other two questions, I didn't answer them because the answers wouldn't mean much to you. First, I do not give the Earth an exact age, because the Bible does not do so. I have no problem with the idea that the Earth is older than the 6,000 years that some interpret the Bible to say, but that does not mean that I believe in the scientific figures either. If you expect me to be more precise, then you shall be disappointed.

To you second question...I have no theories about the creation of the world, beyond those which the Bible describes, but I do not consider them theories. Any apparent conflict between science and the Bible is due to a lack of knowledge in science, and a misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm not going to repeat my explaination of the Genesis account of creation, because if once is not enough, twice won't do any better.

I explained the facts: neither of us knows and neither of us is interested in these minutae. Both of us rely on third parties, except I choose scientists and you choose bible literalists. Do you have a problem with this concept? When you want to buy a new processor, do you read Anand's hardware reviews, or do you go and get a degree in computer engineering, then proceed to program your own benchmarks, test all processors and only then make a decision?

As for the second one, I didn't ask for creation stories, I asked for an explanation. If I ask a priest for the origin of intelligence, all he will do is postulate (God exists), then obfuscate (god created this, then created that, then created a guy and gal, who begat this guy, who begat, who begat, who begate yada yada yada). Nowhere would one find an actual explanation.

I had a conversation with an evangelist yesterday and when the conversation ended, I told him I'd "think about it", after which I was told that I shouldn't think, but just accept Jesus or go to hell. It was a funny conversation (to me, at least) and I'm glad he was honest on their views on thinking...

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Given how similar most living organisms are, a far more informative comparison would be to quantify how different they are, not how 'the same' since this number is artificially high.

For example, at 98% 'the same' or whatever chimpanzees are, we aren't even capable of interbreeding right?

Close, but not quite correct. Humans & chips screwing will not normally result in pregnancy, but there is like a 1 in 1000 chance or something that it can. There was a DNA study which found based on different levels of divergence in the X chromosome vs. other chromosomes that humans & chimps were still actively interbreeding less than 5 million years ago.

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

I'm not an evangelist, and I never told you not to think. On the contrary, that is exactly what I am asking of you. Also, contrary to your notion, I do not get all of my views from the Bible, but it is a basis on which I build. That was my entire concept that I tried to discuss in my "Logic" thread. The Bible does not give every detail about the universe, or even of the life on Earth, but what it does give is true. For a more complete picture, we must take information from whereever it comes from, but it the Bible, science, history or even to a small degree, pagan religions. Why do I include the latter? Because the Bible itself tells us that some angels came to Earth and mingled with women, to produce a strain of men of reknown. These men were not simply humans, therefore I seriously doubt that their genetic makeup would be exactly the same as our's. I don't know that this would account for the neanderthals, but I don't know that it wouldn't either. As I alluded to before, there was an Earth age prior to Genesis from which I believe that the angels originated from. If that is true, then there would be fossilized remains from their Earthly lives left behind here. Simply finding fossilized remains does not prove anything that disproves the Bible.

 

[Coldkilla]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,
As I alluded to before, there was an Earth age prior to Genesis from which I believe that the angels originated from. If that is true, then there would be fossilized remains from their Earthly lives left behind here. Simply finding fossilized remains does not prove anything that disproves the Bible.

Nice use of opinions to carry your arguement. Some use fact. Hmm, where's your biblical facts? I'll write a book one day called: "Bible - Reloaded". And everything will be true b/c I wrote it.

 

[Zebo]

It's true...My wife calls me a Neanderthal sometimes way I dress and eat. It's all good though ..sorta good for her for me to be in touch with my animal side

 

[jackschmittusa]

Seekermeister

Your "contamination" theory is layed to rest by several things when you examine more than one sample.

Samples collected from around the globe have been compared as well as the fossils, etc. found in them. The test results have been consistant with the flora, fauna, and in some cases with atmosphereic conditions, that existed at similar time periods.

It is accepted as true that the lower the geologic layer, the older it is. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, but these are usually readily identified by the results of the exceptional forces that acted on a reletivly small geographic area.) The radio dating has also been consistant with the stratographic layers they have been taken from.

So, while any given sample has a slight probability of error, the enormous number of samples tested has yielded a true picture of the past.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: 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.

I didn't ask about what Wikipedia said, I asked for comments pertaining directly to my post. Are you capable of giving a reasonable response?

Enig101's citation from Wikipedia was completely relevant, as it demonstrates that your citation misrepresents how U-Pb dating actually works. According to YOUR source, science's questionable "assumption" in performing U-Pb dating is that the samples analyzed don't contain any Pb. But the Wikipedia citation makes clear that in fact U-Pb dating doesn't just willy-nilly analyze the U-Pb ratio in the ENTIRE sample. Instead, U-Pb dating analyzes the U-Pb ratio in the zirconium that is present in the sample. Since zirconium incorporates uranium and strongly rejects Pb, there's no "assumption" of no initial Pb, since the absence of Pb initially is a scientificaly demonstrable property of zirconium. Thus, any Pb found within the zicronium matrix has to have come about because of uranium decay AFTER the zirconium was formed, not from an initial seeding with Pb. This wikipedia explanation is completely relevant because in explaining how U-Pb dating actually works it anihilates the objection of your source.

What is more, there are TWO independent uranium decays analyzed in the zirconium matrix: U235 and U238, which decay at different rates. Thus, when ages computed from both the U235 and U238 decay in the same sample agree well, there is high confidence that the estimated age is accurate.

But you didn't bother to take the time to understand this. The fact that your response was, "I didn't ask about what Wikipedia said" merely shows that you have no interest in understanding the REAL science underlying radiometric dating techniques. That is, rather than letting science speak for itself, you insist on providing us with Christian websites' strawman versions of science.

Take a good look at yourself in the mirror and perhaps you'll get an inkling of how utterly devoid of intellectual honesty you are.

 

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Seekermeister

Your "contamination" theory is layed to rest by several things when you examine more than one sample.

Samples collected from around the globe have been compared as well as the fossils, etc. found in them. The test results have been consistant with the flora, fauna, and in some cases with atmosphereic conditions, that existed at similar time periods.

It is accepted as true that the lower the geologic layer, the older it is. (Yes, there are a few exceptions, but these are usually readily identified by the results of the exceptional forces that acted on a reletivly small geographic area.) The radio dating has also been consistant with the stratographic layers they have been taken from.

So, while any given sample has a slight probability of error, the enormous number of samples tested has yielded a true picture of the past.

Since the source of any igneous rocks used as samples would have been derived from the same source...the inner molten layer, it is likely that all samples of this kind would have similar compositions. Therefore, the number of locations that they are taken from on the surface, is not relevant. As far as any fossils found inside these samples, I doubt that there would be any, because of how these rocks formed. Even if there were, the fossils would not give any information about the date of the rock. Nor does fossils in other strata indicate anything about the true age of any layer, because there is no way to date the fossils, except by the position within a strata in which it is found. Geologists date strata by fossils, paleontologists date fossils by the strata from which they came. Circular reasoning, without any method of cross checking.

In case you wish to raise the subject of potassium argon dating, here is an article that you should read:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/volcano.html

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

Also, contrary to your notion, I do not get all of my views from the Bible, but it is a basis on which I build. That was my entire concept that I tried to discuss in my "Logic" thread.
For a more complete picture, we must take information from whereever it comes from, but it the Bible, science, history or even to a small degree, pagan religions.

Do you ever tell the truth? In this thread, you said:

If I wanted to prove anything in this regards, science is the last place that I would look to.

Link to Seeker saying that he wouldn't trust science, even if it proved that "his" god really existed.

Why do I include the latter? Because the Bible itself tells us that some angels came to Earth and mingled with women, to produce a strain of men of reknown. These men were not simply humans, therefore I seriously doubt that their genetic makeup would be exactly the same as our's. I don't know that this would account for the neanderthals, but I don't know that it wouldn't either. As I alluded to before, there was an Earth age prior to Genesis from which I believe that the angels originated from. If that is true, then there would be fossilized remains from their Earthly lives left behind here. Simply finding fossilized remains does not prove anything that disproves the Bible.[/quote]
So, "angels", i.e. ghosts, have bones?:laugh: BTW, did these angels marry these women?:shocked:

 

[jackschmittusa]

Ash and other materials can coat living things before any molten covering occurs. These coverings become identifiable layers in the geology, and are sequential.

Are you ascerting that there is a homogenous molton layer beneath the entire surface of the earth that would always yield the same results, being equaly contaminated?

Do you dispute that lower layers of material are older layers? If so, what is your evidence?

Do dispute that certain types of fossils of a given species are always found in layers identified as belonging to the same time range?

Radio and strata dating compliment and confirm each other, and do not constitute circular reasoning. Your assumption that they are isolated from each other is erronious.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 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.

I think Seekermeister is a hoax member pulling everyone's chain.

There can't really be anyone this ignorant living among us can there?

It has to be a joke.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: feralkid
There can't really be anyone this ignorant living among us can there?

His words speak for themselves, don't they?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: feralkid
It has to be a joke.

This is the conclusion I'm reaching as well.

 

[MikeO]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: feralkid
It has to be a joke.

This is the conclusion I'm reaching as well.

Yep, although seeing people banging their heads to a wall trying to reply to him is hilarious as hell :laugh: I've been reading his postings since one thread where he used some biblical calculations to prove something and I have to say he's one of the most entertaining characters on AT for a long time.

And Seeker starting a thread named "Logic", that's beyond being priceless :laugh:

 

[DealMonkey]

It's pretty transparent what Seekermeister is doing here. It's the exact same tactic the ID crowd uses. They try and nibble away at the theory of evolution with their BS "science" obtained from some looney Christian web site while offering no evidence whatsoever to prove their own ludicrous theories. Seekermeister takes it one step further though and apparently has NO theory of his own to support. He's simply here to attempt to tear down evolution. Here's a little advice for you Seekermeister: How about leaving it to science to explain the "how" and leaving it to religion to explain the "why." For example, we all know Neanderthals existed (we can prove it), but if you'd like to believe that they were the product of cross-breeding between angels and monkeys (or whatever the hell you actually believe) then so be it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's pretty transparent what Seekermeister is doing here. It's the exact same tactic the ID crowd uses. They try and nibble away at the theory of evolution with their BS "science" obtained from some looney Christian web site while offering no evidence whatsoever to prove their own ludicrous theories. Seekermeister takes it one step further though and apparently has NO theory of his own to support. He's simply here to attempt to tear down evolution.

Here's a little advice for you Seekermeister: How about leaving it to science to explain the "how" and leaving it to religion to explain the "why."

For example, we all know Neanderthals existed (we can prove it), but if you'd like to believe that they were the product of cross-breeding between angels and monkeys (or whatever the hell you actually believe) then so be it.

One big problem with that, folks like him don't believe in Science.

It's quite a conundrum.