19
   

New Human Group?

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
So true, and that truth can be extended to cousins of ours - even distant ones, like dolphins and whales, who shared the land with us once but decided to return to the oceans. Of course all of us want to know more about our ancestors and other relatives, so I appreciate your thread here (btw, don't mind Finn, he's an OK guy but probably abides by strict Hebraic beliefs such as the planet is five (or is it six?) thousand years old. You and others interested will enjoy the reporting of your news on the latest Economist - their take is that we finally discovered the abominable snowman of the Himalayas, aka yeti:
Quote:
...The finger bone was found in strata dated to between 48,000 and 30,000 years ago (the bone itself has not yet been dated). That means the creature was contemporary with both Neanderthals and modern humans in the area. There was, then, a real ecosystem of othermen in southern Siberia. ... Do not be surprised if, [...] , the new, mountain-dwelling, central-Asian species actually becomes known as the yeti.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767281
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 03:43 pm
Yeti? Well, okay.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 05:20 pm
@High Seas,
No, there is nothing "wrong" about what I wrote. If they were around 30,000 years ago, it certainly doesn't mean they were not around 600,000 years ago, and there is not a consensus on their being a species or sub-species. There is also no consensus on whether or not they interbred with Cro-Magnon man.

I appreciate your endorsement of me as an OK guy, but the assertion (jocular or otherwise) that I am a Creationist is absurd. Just read my posts in this one thread.

Perhaps I was too hard on poor old edgar (after all he's never said a bad word about me before), but he posted the story and not without commentary.

What is the import of discovering another failed evolutionary branch? If it's true (and one lone finger bone can actually tell us this?), it's not without interest but I can't for the life of me figure out why it should engender wonder and awe in the layman.

Let's assume it's true, and even that it means there were others? Again, so what?

"Scientists" may be excited but there are entomologists who are just as excited when they find an actually new species of beetle.

There are many more amazing wonderments, but if this story gives you a thrill, good for you.

Hey if the color of bubblegum gives you a thrill, good for you.

It is kind of cranky of me to possibly kill an intellectual buzz.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 05:49 pm
I posted the story, because it is totally believable. I leave it to others to draw conclusions, if they view it differently.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 06:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I thought it was cranky. Razz

~~~~~~~

I was/am facinated with the story edgar. Thanks for posting it.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2010 06:25 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn, I know you're not a so-called Creationist and have never come off as such. But I mst say this: your original post took me somewhat aback by its vehemence. It sounded like you were actually somehow offended by edgar's bringing up the subject, as though the notion somehow violated some core belief of yours. I may well be wrong but that's what it sounded like, that's the tone that came through. And the personal attack on edgar's character was, of course, totally uncalled for.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 09:28 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Well, I'm sorry I mistook you for a creationist - from other discussions I know you're very observant in re jewish faith, and couldn't account in any other way for your forceful reaction to Edgar's post. I also thought the Siberian discovery fascinating, and also the discovery in Crete which I linked. From your subsequent post I also fail to see your reasons for that forceful reaction - is it DNA-based? Is it the dating of the layers?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 11:41 am
@High Seas,
I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to a poster who is a liberal. -Anything a liberal writes must be challenged, no matter what.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:04 pm
@edgarblythe,
yeah Finn is an interesting person for sure.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Mar, 2010 12:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to a poster who is a liberal. -Anything a liberal writes must be challenged, no matter what.

Somehow I doubt that, Edgar - I just don't believe that our distant relatives had any time to waste, whether in Siberia or in Crete, with political or religious issues - avoid saber-toothed-tiger, keep fire burning, kill food, cook food, feed baby, feed dog, seem more likely issues. I myself belong to the most extreme right wing and never thought to confuse your political leanings with half-million-years-old bones in Siberia! My own hypothesis, that Finn objected on strictly literal Old Testament grounds, was obviously mistaken - we'll just have to wait until he gets back to find out about your hypothesis.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 12:16 am
@Merry Andrew,
Like I said Merry, dissing edgar was totally uncalled for --- it's not as if he has ever posted anything negative about me.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 12:33 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Well, I'm sorry I mistook you for a creationist - from other discussions I know you're very observant in re jewish faith, and couldn't account in any other way for your forceful reaction to Edgar's post. I also thought the Siberian discovery fascinating, and also the discovery in Crete which I linked. From your subsequent post I also fail to see your reasons for that forceful reaction - is it DNA-based? Is it the dating of the layers?


You're highly mistaken High Seas.

I am neither Jewish nor in any way observant of the Jewish faith. neither am I Christian, nor observant, in any way, of the Christian faith. Ditto Hinduism, Buddhisim, Islam, Jainism, Taoism et al.

I believe in a very dynamic God but am not an adherent of any earthly faith. I am, however, quite tolerant of all earthly faiths and believe them to be, in the main, entirely positive elements of human society.

I'm sorry if I was supposed to jump on the wonder train set in motion by edgar, but I thought it, like all contrived sources of awe, to be quite silly.

I'm not a huge fan of edgar (although I do appreciate his affinity for poetry) and perhaps this fact contributed to the vehemence of my expression, but the notion (edgar's, not yours) that it was simply a refelxive response to the posting of a "liberal," is simply absurd.

Despite all the clamor concerning how mine was the reply of a curmudgeon, no one has yet to be able to provide a sensible explanation of why this so-called finding is deserving of great interest, let alone awe and wonder.

I can imagine why paleontolgists seeking additional funding might want to tout this "discovery" as something wonderful, but not why any of us would find it any more than mildly interesting.




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:37 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I can imagine why paleontolgists seeking additional funding might want to tout this "discovery"

This is reeally not the realm of paleontology.

Does this represent extended diversity built into the ancient Homo genome?

Since the entire Neanderthal genome is unknown (of a 22000 coded SN's sequence , Planck and the Penn State crew has successfully sequenced less than 1000}. Its really hard to say what really IS beyond or between.

Paabo is perhaps one of the most quoted guys in this field. I cannot imagine that he would have made these leading announcements . I think its more of a journalists desire to make deadlines with a bang.
Just my two cents.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:39 am
how long before this other branch of human can take over from the sorry lot that run things today

quit the clowning and get cloning

a new world for old species
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:31 am
@farmerman,
You're right about the announcement:
Quote:
Until the team has a complete sequence of nuclear DNA, "we are not saying this is a new species," Pääbo said at a news conference. ...

The full DNA sequence won't be available for several months, he said. Could you please explain (in simple terms) why it takes that long? The Max Planck institute has some of the fastest computers around. Thanks.
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:33 am
Speaking of humanoids...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 10:35 am
@High Seas,
The computers are only as good as the PCR techniques. Then the entire thing becomes a giant statistical game where Single Nucleotide sequences are strung together and correlated with known genome sections. Also, part of the team is at Penn State U. The last genome of the neanderthal took em almost a year and they still only had about 350 sequences.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 02:14 pm
@farmerman,
As already said I know nothing of biology. I do however know the mathematical modeling involved in nuclear (non-medical) applications >
Quote:
In addition, the capabilities developed through this terascale computing partnership between government and industry will provide a commercial platform for medical simulations, genetic computing, global climate modeling, aerospace and automotive design, financial models, and other domestic applications.

https://asc.llnl.gov/asc_history/asci_mission.html
> and I just plain wonder, since all that money was appropriated using the above language verbatim in addition to the original purpose of the supercomputers, why can't Penn State U or Max Planck institute ask to run its mathematical simulations on these particular supercomputers?

Specifically: for years I've been hearing the Chinese are way ahead of us in genetic modifications for curing diseases, producing designer athletes, whatever - so I'm thinking the modeling of individual hydrogen atoms crashing into each other and producing helium is interesting, but we're so broke on the federal level that we have to focus on generating some hard cold cash. If this doesn't make sense from a bio standpoint, pls ignore it, and thanks again.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 02:38 pm
@High Seas,
Fast computers arent the limiting thing (are wew seeing our worlds problems as a nail?) Wink . ACtually the set-ups and information of the genetic codes is only available from very sophisticated Mass Spectrometers that look at these things Ion by ion. You dont get an answer that states that you have a seris of Single nucleotide structures, you actually get the atomic weights and crystal structures of the chemicals making up the nucleotides. Then we have to use the computers to do a "best fit" from all that N,H,P,O ,C etc.. THEN, when , say all the Guanines are lined up, they use the xl structures to recreate the structure of thearray of the nucleotides . This takes forever and is not relegated to any high level of urgency to run it out to SAndia's super computer.

Its like trying to recreate a specific diamond necklace when all were given is information of the structural components of a high carbon substance with several metal inclusions and interspersed by small xls of some kind of noble metal.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 02:40 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
Specifically: for years I've been hearing the Chinese are way ahead of us in genetic modifications for curing diseases, producing designer athletes, whatever
When we are not limited by ethics or "doing right" we could accomplish many more things. I havent herd about the Chinese genomics program. Will we have a "genome gap"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New Human Group?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 07:44:49