Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

Neanderthals aren't excluded from being ancestors of modern man only on the grounds of DNA evidence. Heck, fungus wouldn't be excluded based on DNA evidence if only enough time were available for evolution. Neanderthals are excluded because they evolved on in the cold north, as is evident by their phenotypes as well as the fossil record, while humans evolved much closer to the equator. Humans existed in africa at the same time neanderthals existed in europe, and the neanderthals died out when the Humans arrived. They are close relatives, probably closer than most Homo heidelbergensis, but then again your brother is a closer relative than your great great grandfather, although it is your grandfather from whom you are descendant.

Besides, you can't just judge by apearence, poodles look nothing like wolves, but yet they are closely related.

0 Replies

Like I say, all the experts claim there ARE no intermediate species.

Now, what Gould, Eldredge, and a few others did bears some explanation.

The theory of evolution, Darwin's version of it at least, had lain like a dead hand over the field of paleontology for about a hundred years, and something had to be done. Gould and the others therefore devised a new version of evolution called "Punctuated Equilibria" (punk-eek for short) which amounts to a claim that there can be a theory of evolution WITHOUT intermediate fossils. Gould and the others claimed that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in isolared small areas, amongst tiny populations of animals. The tiny population develops some genetic advantage and then somehow or other breaks out of the isolated area and outcompetes and replaces other animals which are similar or share the same "niche" it uses, and somehow or other this has happened octillions of times and accounts for our entire biosphere.

Gould claims to resolve two problems with this approach, i.e. the problem of there being no intermediate fossils, and the population genetics problem of the immense time spans it would take to spread any genetic change through a large herd of animals. Supposedly, the tiny groups are too small to leave fossils, and small enough not to take long time spans to pass genetic change around.

Now, granted this makes no more sense than Darwin's version and granted it has its own set of fatal flaws and problems, but this is the semi-official replacement for Darwinism as things now stand.

Gould clearly viewed evolutionists as idiots and figured he'd give them whatever they needed to stop their meddlling in paleontology and preventing himself and others from publishing "scientifically incorrect" kinds of materials. Kind of like the famous story about the Kids show radio announcer in NY in the 30s ("That ought to take care of the little bastards for another day...").

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Neanderthals aren't excluded from being ancestors of modern man only on the grounds of DNA evidence. Heck, fungus wouldn't be excluded based on DNA evidence if only enough time were available for evolution. Neanderthals are excluded because they evolved on in the cold north, as is evident by their phenotypes as well as the fossil record, while humans evolved much closer to the equator. Humans existed in africa at the same time neanderthals existed in europe, and the neanderthals died out when the Humans arrived.

Sorry, that's wrong. Humans and neanderthals lived side by side for long periods of time in the levant and a few other areas and it was always a mystery how that could be and yet there be no sign of crossbreeding. I've seen at least one long article on the subject, but have lost track of it for the time being.

0 Replies

Just piping in again....wouldn't it be a fair assumption that both evolutionists and creationists don't quite have it right yet?

0 Replies

I know that, I should probably have made myself more clear. The point is that humans and neanderthals are separate lines with a common anscestor, and not one the descendent of the other. There not being cross breeding is acounted for by the two lineages having been geographically isolated for long enough for their genetic makeup to become incompatible. Besides, since the neanderthals didn't have any developed linguistic abilities, it would make sense that comunities modern humans (intolerant as they are) would not allow such interbreeding. Think good ole boys.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Just piping in again....wouldn't it be a fair assumption that both evolutionists and creationists don't quite have it right yet?

No

0 Replies

But lets get to the point gunga, you admit to what you call "microevolution". Can you come up with any reason why this process could not turn, say, a species like cats innto something like tigers? Or bears?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
Just piping in again....wouldn't it be a fair assumption that both evolutionists and creationists don't quite have it right yet?

No

Sorry, I'm firmly on the side of evolution. I was just funning in a subtle way. Wink

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Sorry, I'm firmly on the side of evolution. I was just funning in a subtle way.

Sorry, I didn't get your joke. I was just answering your question.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Just piping in again....wouldn't it be a fair assumption that both evolutionists and creationists don't quite have it right yet?

Yes.

0 Replies

Well, the evidence also indicates that the Neanderthal-types are NOT extinct.
The evidence suggests that SOME of them might even be posting here at A2K.

Re: The "fossil record" and evolution... and remains of "transitional" forms... it's not as if there's some little filing cabinet somewhere where the researchers can open a drawer and reference the remains of an individual from any particular era at will.
The anthropological specimens available aren't that numerous, nor do they come cross-referenced.

Perhaps the "transitional" examples we seek are interred in gsnake's "city" 2000 feet beneath the Gulf of Mexico. (insert "eyeroll" emoticon HERE)

The logistical gymnastics gsnake indulges in to deny Evolutionary theory and support Biblical accounts...
phenomenal!

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

cavfancier wrote:
Sorry, I'm firmly on the side of evolution. I was just funning in a subtle way.

Sorry, I didn't get your joke. I was just answering your question.

The question is, we don't really know, whatever side of the fence we're on.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

I know that, I should probably have made myself more clear. The point is that humans and neanderthals are separate lines with a common anscestor....

I KNOW that's what they teach, but it's wrong. Homo Heidelbergensis is obviously much further removed from humans than the neanderthal is.

If humans can't be descended from the neanderthal because the genetic gape is too wide, i.e. because the neanderthal is too far back from us, then how in hell can we be descended from something even further back??

There is a simple logical point here and so far you have been refusing to look at it. The guys who teach this stuff generally have not gotten as far as examining the logic involved.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
I know that, I should probably have made myself more clear. The point is that humans and neanderthals are separate lines with a common anscestor....

I KNOW that's what they teach, but it's wrong. Homo Heidelbergensis is obviously much further removed from humans than the neanderthal is.

Evidence of this? And please come up with something other than "Homo Heidelbergensis is uglier".

Quote:

If humans can't be descended from the neanderthal because the genetic gape is too wide, i.e. because the neanderthal is too far back from us, then how in hell can we be descended from something even further back??

Nobody ever said Humans couldn't have been descended from neanderthals because the evolutionary gap was too wide. What I have stated is that humans and neanderthals are known to have originated in different regions, which is also supported by the anatomy of the two species, and humans later spread to the habitat of the neanderthals which later became extinct. That much we know independent of genetic evidence. What was considered possible was that humans simply owerwhalmed the neanderthal population with numbers, and diluted neanderthal blood until all that was left was humans. If this were the case one would expect to see faint traces of it in the genes of modern humans, and reference of modern human genes with neanderthal genes show this not to be the case.

Humans could not produce viable offspring with neanderthals because of the evolutionary gap. This no doubt also goes for the majority of homo heidelbergensis. More than likely, late specimens of homo heidelbergensis would not have produced viable offspring if mated with early specimens of homo heidelbergensis.

Quote:

There is a simple logical point here and so far you have been refusing to look at it. The guys who teach this stuff generally have not gotten as far as examining the logic involved.

The logic involved is unproblematic.

You still have not come up with any mechanism that would prevent evolution, which you do atmit occor, from over time causing sufficient change to justify calling the end product a diferent species than the "original". Is your argument that this is possible, but does not happen because ... that wouldn't fit the biblical acount of creation?

0 Replies

Would you agree that Asian elephants and African elephants are very similar?

Did you know they are sepereate species?

Did you know that there has never been a successful crossbreeding between these two species?

Why is that?

0 Replies

I'm sorry, who was that directed at?

0 Replies

Ummmm.... Mostly to Gungasnake, but it might as well be to everyone.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Would you agree that Asian elephants and African elephants are very similar?

Did you know they are sepereate species?

Did you know that there has never been a successful crossbreeding between these two species?

Why is that?

Elephants Have Different Genes

0 Replies

They have lived in geographical sparation for long enough for irrelevant segments of DNA (junk DNA) to mutate to an extent which makes their genetical makeup incompatible.

0 Replies

They have evolved. From a common ancestor into 2 new species.

0 Replies

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know