Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[Seekermeister]

Originally posted by: 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.

If the ash that you are referring to is volcanic, then it would face the same dating issues as any other rock. If you are referring to ash produced by the burning of organic material, these layers are small and localized, and they are in relatively shallow layers...generally around ruins of human habitation.

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?

Yes. While there may be some minor fluctuations due to newly melted rocks locally, that would be basically indiscernable

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

Yes and no. While the layers are sequential, and it is obvious that the lower was produced first, some layers were produced within a time frame that is small enough to be almost simutaneous. Most of the stratification was produced when the surface was underwater, with a smaller and more isolated areas being caused by erosion.

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

irrelevant. The types of fossils that you are referring to that might be in layers of equal time are marine. Since all areas of the Earth's surface has been underwater at one time or another, this would be expected, but has little use in dating anything to do with land lifeforms.

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.

As I said, circular reasoning.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 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.

At a purely logic level taking any knowledge from a book that has no scientific basis what-so-ever is called insanity.

But still, you are a funny dude!

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

As I said, circular reasoning.

No more circular than accepting religious texts as true, and then using said truths to show that the Bible is correct.

 

[Enig101]

I would recommend not arguing with Seekermeister any further. You are not going to get anywhere. If there were not rules against personal flames, I would explain precisely why. It's an exercise in futility.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
You are also correct that I do not believe in any fossil dating techniques, because they are based on theories without any substance.

Do tell.

 

[Seekermeister]

Enig101,

For once, you have said something that I can agree with. While it is possible for someone to enlighten me about about some arcame aspect of science, to expect me to change my opinions and beliefs regarding the creation of the Earth and universe is a exercise in futility. So abandon all hope, unless you are reading and posting just for your own amusement.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Enig101,

For once, you have said something that I can agree with. While it is possible for someone to enlighten me about about some arcame aspect of science, to expect me to change my opinions and beliefs regarding the creation of the Earth and universe is a exercise in futility. So abandon all hope, unless you are reading and posting just for your own amusement.

If you are immune to science and truth, why bother posting about scientific topics? Why waste our time making posts purporting to reflect scientific truth when those posts end up being nothing but fabrications - created by fundamentalists with a vested interest in discrediting science - of what science really is?

 

[abj13]

:roll:

Let me guess, Seekermeister = Riprorin

First, its obnoxious threads and posts about using "logic" and evolution, then what's next, anti-abortion propoganda?

 

[GZeus]

Hmmm... interesting discussion here folks. Lets see, what to believe???

Science does not offer 'perfect' solutions. However, it is not supposed to. It is a quest for observable and verifiable fact. Note "quest". Science of any kind is almost never complete since every new discovery leads to more questions. That science cannot indisputably prove something does not mean that is not based on reality - just that the quest is incomplete - and in some cases will never be.

OR...

It all happened by magic. Regardless of how 'divine intervention' is framed, that is what the argument comes down to. Except in this case 'they' add the kicker: "Either you believe in the magic I believe in, or you are condemned." - and in extreme cases, deserve to die.

I'll take science over fear and superstition any day of the week - and twice on Sundays!

 

[marvdmartian]

So simple, even a caveman can do it!! :laugh:

 

[Seekermeister]

It seems that the last 4 posters aren't capable of dealing with anything that upsets their view of reality. If that is so, then they should be reading a forum such as this, because if everyone always agreed on a particular subject, there would never be any debates, no need for votes, and no need for governments, because everybody would just be one happy family.

I don't particularly enjoy reading some of the views expressed here either, but you don't hear me complaining, and asking someone to shutup.

BTW, God doesn't use magic.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
It seems that the last 4 posters aren't capable of dealing with anything that upsets their view of reality.

As much as you'd like to insist otherwise, science is not a "view of reality." Unlike religion, which IS a view of reality, science is solely an investigative method. You seem to think the bible and (for example) a textbook on biology are equivalent. You are completely wrong: The bible IS religion - a prepackaged statement of reality. A biology textbook, on the other hand, is a product of science. A product, by the way, which is never completed.

Science couldn't care less if natural selection is valid or if mankind surfaced fully formed 4,500 years ago. If the data is out there, science will converge on the truth.

Interesting, isn't is, how readily you accept all the other products of the scientific method: Flat-panel monitors, heart-lung machines, laser beams, hydrogen bombs. All the modern miracles of technolgy are attributable to the scientific method.

Somehow, it's only when the scientific method leads to conclusions that challenge your view of reality that you and your ilk tell us how fatally flawed science is.

You can't see it, of course. You think you're rational.

Riiiiiiight.

 

[myocardia]

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.

I thought that was blatantly obvious, at least to anyone who can even comprehend the meaning of the word "logic".

 

[teclado]

So the scifientists had only a 0.5% margin of error, not bad I guess. There is always a margin of error in "science." To say that the DNA test is so accurate that there is no margin for error is just obscene.

[rant/]I'm not one to blindly accept what "science" tells me because "science" that is allegedly too complex for us to understand can easily be rigged in the background. It happens. I had to listen to this sort of trash through all of school and I'm sick of it.[\rant]

Differences in DNA between this "Neanderthal" and ours could account for:
1. scientific error
2. some sort of genetic decay
3. Mislabeling the alleged Neanderthal
4. etc.

[rant/]You think that religions have blind followers? Well, it seems the religion of science has many blind followers as well. You are trusting the scientists to be a)infallible, b)honorable and trustworthy, c)borderline omnipotent. I would not believe a word unless I could perform all of the calculations, experiments, etc. myself. You shouldn't either[\rant]

Feel free to flame away. In our quest for truth may the fires of scrutiny burn away all that is false.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: teclado
So the scifientists had only a 0.5% margin of error, not bad I guess. There is always a margin of error in "science." To say that the DNA test is so accurate that there is no margin for error is just obscene.

[rant/]I'm not one to blindly accept what "science" tells me because "science" that is allegedly too complex for us to understand can easily be rigged in the background. It happens. I had to listen to this sort of trash through all of school and I'm sick of it.[\rant]

Differences in DNA between this "Neanderthal" and ours could account for:
1. scientific error
2. some sort of genetic decay
3. Mislabeling the alleged Neanderthal
4. etc.

[rant/]You think that religions have blind followers? Well, it seems the religion of science has many blind followers as well. You are trusting the scientists to be a)infallible, b)honorable and trustworthy, c)borderline omnipotent. I would not believe a word unless I could perform all of the calculations, experiments, etc. myself. You shouldn't either[\rant]

Feel free to flame away. In our quest for truth may the fires of scrutiny burn away all that is false.

meh, weak.

Don't get on a plane, car,, or elevator until you do those experiments.

 

[teclado]

Originally posted by: sandorski
meh, weak.

Don't get on a plane, car,, or elevator until you do those experiments.

A plane, car, or an elevator can only kill me. Scientific concoctions can drive me insane.

Looks like this thread is P&N vs. seekermeister. Well, not any more.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: sandorski
meh, weak.

Don't get on a plane, car,, or elevator until you do those experiments.

A plane, car, or an elevator can only kill me. Scientific concoctions can drive me insane.

Looks like this thread is P&N vs. seekermeister. Well, not any more.

Nah, it's Reason vs Unreason, choose whatever side you want though.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: teclado
[rant/]I'm not one to blindly accept what "science" tells me because "science" that is allegedly too complex for us to understand can easily be rigged in the background. It happens. I had to listen to this sort of trash through all of school and I'm sick of it.[\rant]

Hah, I'm glad you at least admit your ignorance, and that you have absolutely no knowledge of the topic being discussed here.:laugh:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: teclado

Originally posted by: sandorski
meh, weak.

Don't get on a plane, car,, or elevator until you do those experiments.

A plane, car, or an elevator can only kill me. Scientific concoctions can drive me insane.

I think you should then throw that evil little box sitting beside you (the one letting you post these posts on the internet) in the trash, then. It's obviously evil, since you don't understand how it works.:roll:

Looks like this thread is P&N vs. seekermeister.

This thread is logic vs. stupidity. I'm glad that you've decided to join the side of the uninformed; it suits you, it seems.

 

[GZeus]

Originally posted by: teclado

[rant/]You think that religions have blind followers? Well, it seems the religion of science has many blind followers as well. You are trusting the scientists to be a)infallible, b)honorable and trustworthy, c)borderline omnipotent. I would not believe a word unless I could perform all of the calculations, experiments, etc. myself. You shouldn't either[\rant]

Feel free to flame away. In our quest for truth may the fires of scrutiny burn away all that is false.

Science, as a study, is based on the fact that it is fallible!!!

No one trusts any one scientist "to be a)infallible, b)honorable and trustworthy, c)borderline omnipotent."
Thats why part of the scientific process is to re-examine all scientific theories and conclusions repeatedly. Even widely accepted scientific theory is constantly challenged and updated as new information is acquired.
This re-examination takes place over many years, in all fields and is performed by millions of individuals. No one scientist is in charge, no one organization is conspiring to hide the truth.

Even the most elaborate conspiracy theory - of which I'm sure you have several - can account for the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of theories which you dismiss simply because they offend your views.


On the other hand, some people cannot accept any re-examination or challenging of their dogma.
This discounts the possibility of any errors in their interpretation of events they did not take part in and records which they did not write.

In essence, you believe that you, and your interpretations, are infallible.
This, by the way, contradicts the teachings of many faiths, as it places you in parallel with the divine. (... and may just earn you a smiting :Q)

I guess the earth is flat in your view... or perhaps you are just no longer offended by the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
As the man said, science is for the 'how', religion is for the 'why'. Live with it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: teclado
Scientific concoctions can drive me insane.

Too late. You can join the "insane morons against science club" along with your buddy, SM.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: teclado
So the scifientists had only a 0.5% margin of error, not bad I guess. There is always a margin of error in "science." To say that the DNA test is so accurate that there is no margin for error is just obscene.

[rant/]I'm not one to blindly accept what "science" tells me because "science" that is allegedly too complex for us to understand can easily be rigged in the background. It happens. I had to listen to this sort of trash through all of school and I'm sick of it.[\rant]

Differences in DNA between this "Neanderthal" and ours could account for:
1. scientific error
2. some sort of genetic decay
3. Mislabeling the alleged Neanderthal
4. etc.

[rant/]You think that religions have blind followers? Well, it seems the religion of science has many blind followers as well. You are trusting the scientists to be a)infallible, b)honorable and trustworthy, c)borderline omnipotent. I would not believe a word unless I could perform all of the calculations, experiments, etc. myself. You shouldn't either[\rant]

Feel free to flame away. In our quest for truth may the fires of scrutiny burn away all that is false.

This "rant" is useless because it is based off of the false assumption that everyone here is accepting this study as the ultimate truth on Neanderthals.

 

[dmw16]

There is no reaching an agreement here. I have had this, or similar debates with many believers, and came to a simple conclusion.

First, it comes down to a matter of basis. When two people have a completely opposite basis on which they base their logic on, coming to an agreement is impossible. It is like two people arguing about math when one uses base-10 numbering and the other base-2. Maybe that isn't the best example, but I am running short today.

But I will say this to people like seekermaster. If you want to reject science then reject it. State that you believe in god and the teachings of the bible. It is like being in love, there is no evidence, just a feeling. However, if you want to use science you have to be open to critics and prepared to back up your sources. In science, credibility is everything. Different dating techniques has stood the test of time under the review of peers. Conjecture and possible problems with a scientific method on a bias site doesn't really count. If they were to write a scholarly document and open it to the review of the scientific community that would be different.

One thing people like you seem to ignore is that a theory in science has stood the test of time. There is a big difference between the way people use the word "theory" in the everyday language and the way scientists apply it to things like evolution. Don't cast things aside as "just a theory." Please, it makes you look unaware of the basics of the scientific process that we all (i hope) studied in grade school.

Further, a lot of the things you (seekermaster) have said, are really uninformed. You made a comment about skull size and intelligence. But skull size doesnt have to equal smarts. On top of that, smarts don't always win. SOmetimes there are circumstances that are beyond the control of a species. I don't understand how you can ignore the similarities between man and other species like chimps, home erectus, and such.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: dmw16
There is no reaching an agreement here. I have had this, or similar debates with many believers, and came to a simple conclusion.

NOMA.

There is no use arguing against The Truth with facts derived from empirical observation of the real world.

Just let us evolutionists know when you need new antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, vaccines, etc.

 

[teclado]

Yes, dmw16, I do believe that we on a different logic basis, thus not allowing for an agreement to be made.

I have just seen too many people accept scientific theory as fact, only to see that theory later rejected. Yes, scientific theory is changed, updated. That is why I do not put too much faith into it. For all of you who have been generalizing my statements into "Haha this guy thinks the world is flat," cut it out, seriously. I'm talking about science that tries to explain the origins of life, the origins of the universe, or having to do with anything that is several thousand years older than we are. I'm sorry, but science can't do that, as much as some of us would like it to. I'm not so quick to accept that a 38,000...no 45,000...no wait...100 million year old....no wait, we don't know how old it is...neanderthal has a 0.5% genetic difference from us. Perhaps this alleged neanderthal is not a neanderthal at all. I doubt the very basis of this conclusion.

This is sort of a side note here, but it ties into my reasoning for rejection of what I would call religious science(that which tries to explain the origins of life and the universe). I can prove very easily and very scientifically that the very existence of the universe does not make sense. Before the universe, according to science, there was some really super dense matter packed into a little ball that eventually exploded and generated everything. Ok, that's fine, I might believe it if there was an explanation to the origins of the original matter. "You moron, it has already been proven that the universe is expanding. See that little evil box you are using to type this, throw it out because you can't understand it." you say? Ok, perhaps the universe is expanding, even though that theory may change. It still does not explain the origin of that initial matter. So, in order to derive equations for the expansion of the universe, you need to start with zero so as to start with the initial lack of matter. Well, any math operation performed on zero will yield zero. So in order for this to work, you have to jerry-rig the math a bit and feed it some false non-zero, preferably positive, number. This is what religious science does, kiddies. Our very existence defies religious science. So, to accept religious science, I would have to disregard some science, as many scientists do.

This is my logic basis.