Georgia Takes on 'Evolution'

The more I read about this, the more I wonder, why we even don't have an equivalent word for "creationism" in Germany ...

Im busy posting and set and Walter are having fun.
Id have said mt Toba set . of course it was a natural event
but I figger I can make as much(or as little) sense as mr medved.

walter.US is one of the very few reasonably advancedcountries where this is even an issue. Most other countries must think that we are a nation composed of retarded people

You are not going to reach us the collection box, farmerman, are you?

I really like the translation in the dictionaries:
"teaching of the development of the earth, based on a literally interpretation of the bible" - and you have one word, we a long, complicated sentence :wink:

Salvation Army
Salvation Army
Put a nickle on the drum
And you'll be saved . . .

I liked it better, FM, when you wrote "a nation of retards" . . . it was so much more American . . .

set, thank you but I once got holy hell on abuzz (if you can believe hhow that place has turned into a fungus) for using that very term.

he hee hee

I just noticed that this was in S&R instead of politics or science.

It's appropriate, though, don't you think?

its the first phrase what entered me mind. Re;Re; retard

If the forum is to what youve referred, im more convinced it should hhave been placed in the original writing forum.

First off, your statement:



would be interpreted by most people as a claim that I had said that neanderthals were closer to chimpanzees than to us, which I never said.

Maybe some sort of a basic course in the English language is in order.

Other than that, your claim that no credible scientists have stated that neanderthal DNA is about halfway between ours and that of chimps is simply wrong; they've pretty much ALL stated that. Examples are not difficult to find:

example 1
example 2

Good logic, if you cant discuss the subject, discuss the members of the discussion.
le3ts get real here. The purpose of your posting that Neanderthals were halfway between chimps and people was a feeble attempt to lay a foundation for your Creationist rant about the possible models of human appearance on the planet
Your last quote above is scientifically silly, its probably some "science writer's imperfect understanding about what neanderthal DNA represents.. The links that neanderthals were not direct ancestors of humans is not new , such a linneage was first posed by Johannsen in the 70's. Neanderthals were thought to be a distinct but unconnected evolutionary line that budded off the main hominid line wherein H erectus and H ergaster were considered on the direct line to H sapiens .Mayr and mcHenry have posted similar human phylogeny diagrams and McHenry never even had Neanderthalensis in his diagram. Mayr, instead has h heidelbergensis and H neanderthalensis branch off the hominid line that leads to H sapiens about 1.6 million years ago(so theres nothing new here, in fact the newspapers confirm , via DNA, what the paleoanthropologists already hypothesized) The links you posted, basically say the same thing so, in response, Id suggest you learn to read more critically, and stop making silly pronouncements about how this monkeywrenches evolution because it fits the model quite nicely, thank you.

Incidentally,For your further information Paabos work was done using PCR technology, so he was successful, sort of. he managed to replicate and confirm less than 2% of the mitochondrial (not nuclear) DNA of a fossil Neanderthhal. SO obviously the results , while confirming hominid linneage , did not, by a long shot , show the genomes entire similarities to "chimpanzees". Perhaps it could be more

After all , we share well over 95% of DNA with chimps also. The reason is that DNA, once it expresses itself in a genome, is retained in subsequent genetically related animals. That doesnt give much credence to your creation model. It does confirm that DNA is an economic molecule that , as it is expressed in subsequent genomes, retains the original amino acid orders in the chromosomes that express the parental or ancestral forms . Thus the DNA of a turtle is quite similar to the DNA of a snake. Im curious, what model do you expect to be followed?you seem to have espoused a sudden appearance of humans (as if by creation )
Instead of supporting your case, the very points youve relied upon have turned a bit against you. So your ad-hominems and accusations of lying , have no place in a reasonably adult discussion, especially if you cant hold up your end of the argument.
however, you can learn. I suggest a good place to begin is a very accessible text on evolution and genomic expression . Its Ernst Mayrs 2001 text "what evolution is",also James watsons 2003 book called "DNA" has a nice discussion of the Paabo DNA "xeroxing" and a concise discussion of what we have theorized about human evolution and the "out of Africa in 2 trips" hypothesis. In Watsons book, hes reprinted the substance of the Jan 1988 issue of nEWSWEEK, in which the science writers gave a reasonably accurate account of what modern paleoanthropolgy already understood about the " genetic dead-end" line of neanderthals.

i hope this helps you reconsider your Creation model. many creationist spokesmen have used dNA to try to prop up their arguments and its always turned against them as well because , as we learn more and more about various genomes, we see that goulds 'bookkeeping' model is probably correct.

im actually much better at interpreting fossils of lower orders like Conodonts or foraminiferans or trilobites, since these have direct economic geology value, and I use them almost weekly in my work. If there are any questions you want to pose on these lower forms, Ill be glad to respond.

Further, as a species evolves further from its common ancetor, its DNA should record this divergence as more "advanced" types express this divergence in their own unique genome. If you think about it thats what we should expect.

You make a false claim of my having made a statement which I never made and then cry and squeel when I mention the fact, and now I'm dealing in personalities for mentioning the logical inconsistencies in your crying and squeeling??



Still missing the point. What the neanderthal DNA studies show is that there IS NO "direct line" to homo sapiens or, for that matter, any line, direct or otherwise.

The chain is cleanly broken, all other hominids being further removed from modern man than the neanderthal. There is no plausible ancestor left for modern man, period.

And the rant goes on
And the rant goes on
Drums keep poundin' a rhythm to the brain . . .

By the way, you misspelled squeal.

set , I am, due to an accident, blessed with a left hand with no feeling , so when I type, spelling errors abound. im just glad that everyone is patient to not scream out how bad it really is.

this is for medved

DUHH, what part of my previous post didnt you understand. Neanderthal is a HOMINID, not a direct line but on the trunk which split from homo erectus to H habilis then h ergaster and THEN split into another branch of the bush to the line that led to us and another line that included the DEAD END KIDS the Heilbergenses and Neanderthals. Evolution is a bush not a tree.
Thisll be in the test, better learn it if you want to sound serious.
It is abundantly clear that you have no idea in hell what youre talking about in this subject, and Im by far an expert. The actual split from pongid apes occured about 8my ago. Then the entire AUstralopithecenes had about 5 separate lines, one of whhich crossed the Homo barrier about 2my ago (homo erectus being the direct line0 There was another line which died off called H rudolfensis. It crapped out cause it couldnt operate a remote (just kidding). HH erectus broke into 2 to 3 lines and there was an "out of AfricaI" that led to H ergaster and the other dead enders.
If you counted on a mistaken assumption that science was pushing neanderthals as a direct descendant of sapiens, youre sadly mistaken. Even as early as thhe 40s, there was serious doubt on the direct descendancy of sapiens from neanderthalensis. i dont know how to break this to you , but youre about 75 years behind the times. But, from your other inaccuracies about the fossil record, why am I not surprised?

Your comment that thhere is no direct dNA evidence to earlier hominids is actually right, but for the wrong reasons. The next early hominid fossils are the ergaster , heidelbergensis, erectus, rudolfensis, cannotr be sampled for DNA, because its degraded.If they can, they often use osteocalcin as a 'fossil" of dNA, but this isnt fully adequate for sequencing. So, yeh, there isnt any earlier dNA data, but its due to the nature and half life of DNA, not due to some miracle of creation.

set, looked up goober peas, etymology is Bantu--- "Nguba' probably meaning dirt beans. all this time I thought it was a pejorative at the southerners.

I guess medved got disgusted with our godless garbage.

Maybe you convinced him.

You can only convince thhose who will give evidence a hard careful look. Ive never convinced a Creationist or Intelligent Design scientist about the value of any of mainstream science . Their minds are made up based on one book of "evidence"
The best we can do, if were in a forum, is to convince those around you that kids deserve hard facts and evidence and use of the scientific methods , and furthewr , they shouldnt be trapped into believing the myths of Creation without being armed in honest ly derived data .

OK, ok, FM, it was a cheap shot to go after that joker's spelling. I couldn't resist, sometimes i'm a bad man, and can't rise above it.

By the by, FM, i read a fascinating article in yesterday's Times about research done on a myosin trigger gene which had been "turned off" in the line leading to humans, but remains active in the great apes, and is said to be responsible for the large jaw muscles of the great apes. Don't recall the details, although i can dig it out if needs be. I thought of you, because the work was done at Penn.