Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

The Neanderthal has been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for modern man precisely because the genetic gap is too wide

I do have to admit that this all over my head but none the less I like to study the different view points.

I notice in the video you shared that the speaker says in fact Neanderthals are in fact homo sapiens at 11.30 minutes.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Thanks for letting me know!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Similar design, same parts in one or two places just like people were able to use VW parts in Porsches until the mid 60s, it doesn't mean anything and there still is nobody claiming that modern man is DESCENDED from the Neanderthal, the gap is still too wide.

Moreover, there is still zero evidence on this planet of actual human/neanderthal cross-breeding:

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/sep/theneanderthalpe558

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I notice in the video you shared that the speaker says in fact Neanderthals are in fact homo sapiens at 11.30 minutes.

Christians (some of them) like to believe that for theological reasons. Menton is simply wrong on that point; that does not affect his deconstruction of "Lucy".

Neanderthal DNA is roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, so that in real life there is no way to view Neanderthals as another branch of homo sapiens.

4 Replies

@gungasnake,

That info is from 1995, I wonder if any of it has changed in the past 16 years.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

That info is from 1995, I wonder if any of it has changed in the past 16 years.

The answer is no, all they're basing these new claims of relationship on is DNA similarities i.e. same or similar genes in a few places. The research involved in that 95 article of Shreve's was exhaustive and indicated a huge anomaly: the theory (human evolution from hominids) required actual remains of crossbreed types all over the place and to this day nobody has ever found the first one.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Of course no one is claiming that homo sapiens descended from homo neanderthalensis, which was the point of what i posted. You were attempting to cloud the issue at first, by implying that those who (very reasonably) accept descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors (known in shorthand as evolution) were wrong to suggest that, when no reputable scientist does make such a claim. What is accepted in the scientific community is that h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis have a common ancestor about 600,000 ybp.

Now you're attempting a different dodge, with this similar design bullshit. Humans aren't designed, they're the product of evolution. The sequencing of the Neandterhal genome in 2010 has shown that all h. sapiens living today, outside of those descended from humans who were in Africa up until 35,000 ybp all have from 1% to 4% archaic h. neanderthalensis DNA. That is the incontrovertible evidence of interbreeding between h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis. As has already been pointed out, you're using a 15 year old article to attempt to contradict research which was done less than two years ago.

That's because you are fanatically devoted to a conservative christian agenda, although you're never honest about it.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Neanderthal DNA is roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, so that in real life there is no way to view Neanderthals as another branch of homo sapiens.

This is pure bullshit. Provide a source or be braned a liar.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

If you can’t point to a reasoned alternative to Evolution theory and explain why it is better, why shouldn’t we stick with the most reasonable explanation until it is replaced by a more reasonable explanation? You don’t seem to have one but your trying to debunk the only one on the table. In the absence of an alternative the current view must stand. I’d say.

If the alternative is: ‘I don’t know’, then what do you have to offer here? You’ve said your part no one has agreed so all you can do is repeat yourself (I’m not being personal so don’t take offence).

Perhaps try to answer my last post to you?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Menton is simply wrong on that point; that does not affect his deconstruction of "Lucy".

He seems to be a gentleman but I do think that he has his own reason to promote his beliefs. I notice that he shares with the audience a foot from a gorilla{40.3o minutes} as evidence that Lucy's feet could not have made the foot prints!

Have you ever seen the bones in the feet of an Australopithecus ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

What is accepted in the scientific community is that h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis have a common ancestor about 600,000 ybp.

That could only be accepted by somebody who never had a course in basic logic.

Once again: Too-remote-to-be-ancestral-to is a transitive relationship. If the Neanderthal could not be a plausible human ancestor due to the size of the genetic gap, then no other hominid could either. All other hominids were MORE remote from us THAN the Neanderthal.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=logic&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&x=0&y=0

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Your response is meaningless because it is predicated upon a statement from authority on your part that h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis are possessed of significantly divergent genomes. Your appeal to "logic" is defeated at the outset by the most basic of logical objections, false premises.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

This is pure bullshit. Provide a source or be braned a liar.

I've provided sources for this one on A2K several times, e.g.

http://www.expressindia.com/fe/daily/19970712/19355423.html

Quote:

....He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee.....

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

If you can’t point to a reasoned alternative to Evolution theory and explain why it is better, why shouldn’t we stick with the most reasonable explanation until it is replaced by a more reasonable explanation?

"I don't know" is always an honest answer. Evolution at this point in time is not an honest answer, the theory has been overwhelmingly and coercively debunked.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

In the first place, your soucre, Financial Express, is a business journal in the subcontinent, and not a scientific journal. In the second place, it precedes from false premises, too, in that it attempts to blow the same smoke you did, that scientists believe h. sapiens in descended from h. neanderthalensis. That hypothesis has been rejected by mainstream evolutionary biologists for generations.

The quoted article is 14 or more years old. You've already tried to pull that stunt here recently.

It is also important to note that although the author has quoted several researchers in the article, he is not quoting anyone, but making his own statement about h. neanderthalensis being "halfway between a modern human and chimpanzees." Finally, given that the genetic divergence between chimpanzees and modern humans is on the order of 2% of the genome (the other 98% being identical), being halfway between the one and the other is no great difference.

As always, you're blowing smoke, and as always, you don't at all care about the authority of your source. If i wanted up-to-date information on the business climate in the subcontinent i'd consider Financial Express be a first rate source. For evolutionary biology? Not so much.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Menton is simply wrong on that point; that does not affect his deconstruction of "Lucy".

Menton also brings up a point about the pelvis being reconstructed and how it is angled and so forth in that video! Have you researched any other point of views about that than his and if so do you have other links?

I found this one where someone has spent allot of time on but I can not claim it to be a fact! What is your opinion about it?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

In the first place, your soucre, Financial Express, is a business journal in the subcontinent, and not a scientific journal.....

There are numerous sources for that one, I chose the first one which came up on google.

You challenged me to produce a source for the known fact of Neanderthal DNA being roughly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee or be branded (by you presumably) a liar; I produced the source and am presently waiting for an apology.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

No, you provided an out-of-date summary article by a financial journalist who is not citing any authority for his remark. You are also attempting to blow smoke because you hope to make it seem as though there were a great deal of difference between h. sapiens and h. neanderthalensis on the basis of a fling about chimpanzees. Of course, that is willfully misleading because there is not a great genetic difference between h. sapies and chimpanzees. You'll get no apology.

1 Reply

I stand corrected (by me) on the difference between human and chimpanzee genes. It's about 5%:

Quote:

The overall sequence divergence between humans and chimpanzees for example is close to 5% if indels would be included.

Source at Wikipedia

Of course, half way between 95% and 100% is 97.5%. So your attempt to mislead is transparent.

0 Replies

The author of your 14-year-old article is listed at "Linked-in-cot-com" as a financial management consultant in Mumbai. Not an evolutionary biologist, not even a journalist who normally covers scientific subjects. Great source you've got there.

0 Replies

Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know