Study: Neanderthals, humans 99.5% identical

[zinfamous]

Another interesting thing....Mitochondria, which are the organelles within each cell that produce the energy (ATP) for the cell, contian their own DNA. this DNA is not chromosnal, and is not replicated in the need to create genetic information...it is necessary only for the Mitochandria to provide it's energy-creating function.

Mitochondria DNA is maternally inhereted--meaning, that all of your mitochandrai, and anyone else's came for their mother, and their mothers' mitochandria came for their mothers. You trace thsi back far enough...well, it means that all humans descended from one woman. In fact, the lineage has been traced all the way back to one pre-historic woman in Africa, whom scientists have long referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve."

I've always wondered, how the fundies (well, they wouldn't know this b/c they don't expose themselves to real science) react to such evidence. This kind of research justifies them, while spitting in their faces at the same time. This is why they are afraid of science; and the very solid theory of evolutoin through natural selection. They assume contradiction in something so elegant that it screams fact.

Also, the existence of Mitochondria (the fact that Mitochodria are self-sustaining entities within each cell) in Eukaryote cells lends to the theory of early-life Eukaryotic cells engulfing prokaryotes. IE; complex life is what it is today because some paramecium swallowed a bacterial cell, and that bacteria started a life of it's own, producing energy and necessary functions for that larger cell. And without this....complex life never would have eveloved after 1 or 2 billion years.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Another interesting thing....Mitochondria, which are the organelles within each cell that produce the energy (ATP) for the cell, contian their own DNA. this DNA is not chromosnal, and is not replicated in the need to create genetic information...it is necessary only for the Mitochandria to provide it's energy-creating function.

Mitochondria DNA is maternally inhereted--meaning, that all of your mitochandrai, and anyone else's came for their mother, and their mothers' mitochandria came for their mothers. You trace thsi back far enough...well, it means that all humans descended from one woman. In fact, the lineage has been traced all the way back to one pre-historic woman in Africa, whom scientists have long referred to as "Mitochondrial Eve."

I've always wondered, how the fundies (well, they wouldn't know this b/c they don't expose themselves to real science) react to such evidence. This kind of research justifies them, while spitting in their faces at the same time. This is why they are afraid of science; and the very solid theory of evolutoin through natural selection. They assume contradiction in something so elegant that it screams fact.

Also, the existence of Mitochondria (the fact that Mitochodria are self-sustaining entities within each cell) in Eukaryote cells lends to the theory of early-life Eukaryotic cells engulfing prokaryotes. IE; complex life is what it is today because some paramecium swallowed a bacterial cell, and that bacteria started a life of it's own, producing energy and necessary functions for that larger cell. And without this....complex life never would have eveloved after 1 or 2 billion years.

I'm guessing they just ignore that fact because they have no explanation for it.

There are so many interesting things about evolution but Creationists like to pick and choose which parts to learn about (and generally try to refute it) based on their ideas of the world.

 

[MrK6]

Creationism is another dying branch of ignorance, thank goodness. It's difficult to argue about something when you know nothing about it, although that still doesnt stop some people . Mitochondrial Eve was another big step, but as I said in my previous post, having an entire Neanderthal genome would be something incredible .

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: MrK6
Creationism is another dying branch of ignorance, thank goodness. It's difficult to argue about something when you know nothing about it, although that still doesn't stop some people . Mitochondrial Eve was another big step, but as I said in my previous post, having an entire Neanderthal genome would be something incredible .

It sure doesn't seem to be dying here in the US. Nearly 30% of Americans believe Creationism should be taught as equally scientific as evolution. Over half of that 30% believe only Creationism should be taught in schools. It's a shame that almost 1/3 of Americans are retards.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

Actually, that's why the electoral college was put in place
I think the founding fathers were pretty smart.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Humor me. I'm a fairly patient person and I'll wade through a long post if it makes sense and has scientific evidence to back it up. It's not hard to understand something that is logical. Logical mean it makes perfect sense and is the sensible conclusion that should be reached given the evidence. It's only when things get extremely complex and has shaky evidence that things get hard to understand.

At least give me a taste of what the hell you are trying to say and the evidence for it. All you have posted so far has been fairly vague and when asked to explain you seem to dodge the question.

I never say anything to anyone simply for the purpose of appeasing them. However, I find the attitude within this post to be more understandable than your previous ones. Had I seen that at the beginning, I probably would have exerted myself somewhat more in an attempt to speak in a fashion that you might have found more useful.

But, regardless of how much I tried, I probably never would have been able to satisfy your standards of logic, because while I do understand them, you do not understand mine. Despite any appearances otherwise, I do think in a very objective fashion...more so than I speak. Given the time, I might have been able to cause you to see a greater degree of scope of my logic, but there is not enough time left to convey all of it to you. Especially considering the frequent detours injected into the conversation.

The lack of evidence to support my logic, is primarily a lack of perception on your and others part. That is not a put down, it's simply fact. Without an appreciation of the resources provided by this evidence, all that detailed conversation would accomplish is alot of smoke and mirrors. Smoke of spinning wheels, and mirror like in a carnival funhouse which distort reality. In reality, I can do nothing more than attempt to interest or provoke a person to reaccess their position, and to seek a new path which is hidden from them because of the light in which they view things.

If you are so set, that you are unable to understand anything beyond that which measured in a testtube, expressed in an equation, quantified in a formala, etc., then all that either of us could accomplish would be zero in anything improving anyone's understanding. I am vain eough to need a higher expectation of success, because words do not come easily for me. I do not post because I simply enjoy it. Even this short response required more than a little consideration. Perhaps that is part of the reason that you find it difficult to understand. Any apparent evasion is either due to this, or that I choose which battles to fight and in which sequence, which I believe improves the odds of winning the war. My war is not for world domination, but only to help a few people, but that is a bigger conflagration than you might imagine.

That's by far the longest "you are right, I am wrong" I've ever seen in my life.

Sure, sure, but personally, I was awe-struck by the incredible levels of arrogance.

 

[DrPizza]

I think what everyone is failing to understand is that seeker apparently lacks the level of education necessary to comprehend the entire argument. Seeker pointed out that (I'm not going to look up the exact numbers here) only a couple million out of a billion sequences in the DNA strand were examined. That he feels that it is necessary to examine the entire sequence, undamaged, points to a significant lack of understanding of statistical methods; something that this entire thread times 10 in length would be insufficient to convey a complete understanding. We could go on with the understanding of dating methods. Again, to truly comprehend and appreciate the shortcomings/accuracy of each method, one would need to be fairly adept in at least differential equations. That precludes the level of knowledge of biology necessary to completely understand the argument.

The simple fact remains that people with a doctoral level of education in biology and mathematics - from an accredited university - are universally in agreement about most of the science (although, within evolution, for example, there isn't universal agreement on some of the mechanisms, i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual changes). Arguing with people who refuse to change their mind, and who lack the necessary level of education is a fruitless endeavor. It is even more fruitless when those people seem to believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where all scientists hide the facts that hurt their claims; yet they believe those unsupported facts when offered by pseudo-scientists who are little more than creationists attempting to manipulate (or fabricate) evidence to support their side.

Until we do a better job of instilling critical thinking skills in our youth, these nutjobs will continue to claim that they do in fact have critical thinking skills. They'll have uneducated masses clinging to their beliefs. Of course, anyone can claim they have critical thinking skills; I foresee a reply to this post making that exact claim.) Rather than waste efforts "debating" with idiots, efforts would be far more effective in improving education and making these discoveries/evidence more widely known.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: MrK6
Creationism is another dying branch of ignorance, thank goodness. It's difficult to argue about something when you know nothing about it, although that still doesn't stop some people . Mitochondrial Eve was another big step, but as I said in my previous post, having an entire Neanderthal genome would be something incredible .

It sure doesn't seem to be dying here in the US. Nearly 30% of Americans believe Creationism should be taught as equally scientific as evolution. Over half of that 30% believe only Creationism should be taught in schools. It's a shame that almost 1/3 of Americans are retards.

Unfortunately, yes, but compared to 50 years ago when creationism was the norm, or people weren't even contemplating evolution, we're making progress .

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what everyone is failing to understand is that seeker apparently lacks the level of education necessary to comprehend the entire argument. Seeker pointed out that (I'm not going to look up the exact numbers here) only a couple million out of a billion sequences in the DNA strand were examined. That he feels that it is necessary to examine the entire sequence, undamaged, points to a significant lack of understanding of statistical methods; something that this entire thread times 10 in length would be insufficient to convey a complete understanding. We could go on with the understanding of dating methods. Again, to truly comprehend and appreciate the shortcomings/accuracy of each method, one would need to be fairly adept in at least differential equations. That precludes the level of knowledge of biology necessary to completely understand the argument.

The simple fact remains that people with a doctoral level of education in biology and mathematics - from an accredited university - are universally in agreement about most of the science (although, within evolution, for example, there isn't universal agreement on some of the mechanisms, i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual changes). Arguing with people who refuse to change their mind, and who lack the necessary level of education is a fruitless endeavor. It is even more fruitless when those people seem to believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where all scientists hide the facts that hurt their claims; yet they believe those unsupported facts when offered by pseudo-scientists who are little more than creationists attempting to manipulate (or fabricate) evidence to support their side.

Until we do a better job of instilling critical thinking skills in our youth, these nutjobs will continue to claim that they do in fact have critical thinking skills. They'll have uneducated masses clinging to their beliefs. Of course, anyone can claim they have critical thinking skills; I foresee a reply to this post making that exact claim.) Rather than waste efforts "debating" with idiots, efforts would be far more effective in improving education and making these discoveries/evidence more widely known.

QFT *high fives*

However, this country seems to be going in the exact opposite direction. Up through the 90s, we were at the top of our game in academic endeavors, specifically medicine, science, and research. Then we just kind of slumped off and now we're VERY far behind other countries. The lack of educational progress is affecting the entire country, with underfunded and understaffed schools, lack of decent role models and goals in pop culture, and, most unfortunately, poor parenting. There really needs to be a national initiative to boost the importance and focus on eduction, but with the idiot(s) in the white house that we have now, I'm afraid that won't happen for at least two years (and no, "is our children learning" is a MOCK of what I'm talking about).

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what everyone is failing to understand is that seeker apparently lacks the level of education necessary to comprehend the entire argument. Seeker pointed out that (I'm not going to look up the exact numbers here) only a couple million out of a billion sequences in the DNA strand were examined. That he feels that it is necessary to examine the entire sequence, undamaged, points to a significant lack of understanding of statistical methods; something that this entire thread times 10 in length would be insufficient to convey a complete understanding. We could go on with the understanding of dating methods. Again, to truly comprehend and appreciate the shortcomings/accuracy of each method, one would need to be fairly adept in at least differential equations. That precludes the level of knowledge of biology necessary to completely understand the argument.

The simple fact remains that people with a doctoral level of education in biology and mathematics - from an accredited university - are universally in agreement about most of the science (although, within evolution, for example, there isn't universal agreement on some of the mechanisms, i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual changes). Arguing with people who refuse to change their mind, and who lack the necessary level of education is a fruitless endeavor. It is even more fruitless when those people seem to believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where all scientists hide the facts that hurt their claims; yet they believe those unsupported facts when offered by pseudo-scientists who are little more than creationists attempting to manipulate (or fabricate) evidence to support their side.

Until we do a better job of instilling critical thinking skills in our youth, these nutjobs will continue to claim that they do in fact have critical thinking skills. They'll have uneducated masses clinging to their beliefs. Of course, anyone can claim they have critical thinking skills; I foresee a reply to this post making that exact claim.) Rather than waste efforts "debating" with idiots, efforts would be far more effective in improving education and making these discoveries/evidence more widely known.

This is one reason why English is a required prequisite for science/engineering majors. Well-stated.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what everyone is failing to understand is that seeker apparently lacks the level of education necessary to comprehend the entire argument. Seeker pointed out that (I'm not going to look up the exact numbers here) only a couple million out of a billion sequences in the DNA strand were examined. That he feels that it is necessary to examine the entire sequence, undamaged, points to a significant lack of understanding of statistical methods; something that this entire thread times 10 in length would be insufficient to convey a complete understanding. We could go on with the understanding of dating methods. Again, to truly comprehend and appreciate the shortcomings/accuracy of each method, one would need to be fairly adept in at least differential equations. That precludes the level of knowledge of biology necessary to completely understand the argument.

The simple fact remains that people with a doctoral level of education in biology and mathematics - from an accredited university - are universally in agreement about most of the science (although, within evolution, for example, there isn't universal agreement on some of the mechanisms, i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual changes). Arguing with people who refuse to change their mind, and who lack the necessary level of education is a fruitless endeavor. It is even more fruitless when those people seem to believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where all scientists hide the facts that hurt their claims; yet they believe those unsupported facts when offered by pseudo-scientists who are little more than creationists attempting to manipulate (or fabricate) evidence to support their side.

Until we do a better job of instilling critical thinking skills in our youth, these nutjobs will continue to claim that they do in fact have critical thinking skills. They'll have uneducated masses clinging to their beliefs. Of course, anyone can claim they have critical thinking skills; I foresee a reply to this post making that exact claim.) Rather than waste efforts "debating" with idiots, efforts would be far more effective in improving education and making these discoveries/evidence more widely known.

I was with you right up until that part. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that debating with idiots can be a total waste of time, but I disagree that the solution is making the evidence more widely known by improving its coverage in our education system. The problem isn't any specific set of facts or particular topic of debate, the problem is a lack of critical thinking and scientific reasoning...THAT is what we need to improve before we even begin looking at covering various specifics like evolution.

I frequently suggest that what I like about the engineer/scientist types is the way their mind works, not their knowledge of their specific field. That's because whatever knowledge they may lack to solve a particular problem, they know where to find it and they know how to use it when they do. It's all a part of a common language, where ideas like rules of evidence and scientific method transcend whatever the particular topic of discussion might be. THIS is what we are lacking in our society, and that is what our education system needs to be better at teaching.

Edit: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Presenting all the evidence in the world to support evolution is useless if the target of that presentation is unable to look at the evidence in a scientific fashion.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I think what everyone is failing to understand is that seeker apparently lacks the level of education necessary to comprehend the entire argument. Seeker pointed out that (I'm not going to look up the exact numbers here) only a couple million out of a billion sequences in the DNA strand were examined. That he feels that it is necessary to examine the entire sequence, undamaged, points to a significant lack of understanding of statistical methods; something that this entire thread times 10 in length would be insufficient to convey a complete understanding. We could go on with the understanding of dating methods. Again, to truly comprehend and appreciate the shortcomings/accuracy of each method, one would need to be fairly adept in at least differential equations. That precludes the level of knowledge of biology necessary to completely understand the argument.

The simple fact remains that people with a doctoral level of education in biology and mathematics - from an accredited university - are universally in agreement about most of the science (although, within evolution, for example, there isn't universal agreement on some of the mechanisms, i.e. punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual changes). Arguing with people who refuse to change their mind, and who lack the necessary level of education is a fruitless endeavor. It is even more fruitless when those people seem to believe in some sort of conspiracy theory where all scientists hide the facts that hurt their claims; yet they believe those unsupported facts when offered by pseudo-scientists who are little more than creationists attempting to manipulate (or fabricate) evidence to support their side.

Until we do a better job of instilling critical thinking skills in our youth, these nutjobs will continue to claim that they do in fact have critical thinking skills. They'll have uneducated masses clinging to their beliefs. Of course, anyone can claim they have critical thinking skills; I foresee a reply to this post making that exact claim.) Rather than waste efforts "debating" with idiots, efforts would be far more effective in improving education and making these discoveries/evidence more widely known.

This is one reason why English is a required prequisite for science/engineering majors. Well-stated.

:thumbsup: :beer:

that's why I doubled in Bio and English. Sadly though, the majority of Universities don't require their scientists-in-training to learn how to read or write. Crying shame.

Dr. Pizza hit it on the nose though. The debate is irrelevant when one side refuses to accept the logical structure of the other side's argument.

 

[0roo0roo]

one things for sure, those neanderthal chicks were all butherfaces.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
one things for sure, those neanderthal chicks were all butherfaces.

That combined with the fact that alcohol hadn't yet been invented is probably the reason the Neanderthals died out.